Gay Marriage

[jen]

I have a question...

If we are saying that marriage is a religious term that should only apply to a heterosexual relationships, does that then mean that those who get married in a courthouse, who have not had a religious ceremony are not legally married, rather they are participants in a civil union? I mean, if marriage is a religious term, and one does not participate in a religious ceremony, how can they then be married?

What about Buddhists? As far as I know, Buddha never mentioned the gays, so can Buddhist gay people get married? What about Buddhist straight people? How about the atheists? Since they don't believe in God, do they then not have the right to get married?

I just don't see how applying a Christian definition, that not even all Christians agree on, can be acceptable when used to prohibit individual rights?

If one believes that marriage is only between a man and a women, then by all means, that should marry that way, attend church that way...but why are your beliefs more important than mine? My church is A-OK with the gays, why does someone else's church get to decide what's appropriate for mine? Isn't this why we have a separation between Church and State????

I just think the whole debate is illogical.

[just_peachy]

I have no problem with it. As far as parades and flaunting it, I think any group of people that have been persecuted and have had to fight for civil rights has had to make an uproar about it and flaunt it. I however don't want to see anyone making out at Denny's like I witnessed a gay couple do. I don't want to see anyone frenching especially in front of my kids. I have yelled at gay and straight couples alike for doing this. I think anyone who has a history and has had to fight for rights deserve to have parades and holidays to celebrate their struggles and the brave people who put their lives and reputations on the line to get them to where they are. Separation of church and state. Marriage equality for all. That is all.

I love this last sentiment. My uncle is gay and he goes to all the Pride Parades locally. Last year, his employer (Alaska Airlines!) had a float in the parade partly on his behalf! He has a great time and gets to meet a lot of fun people with a common goal. And he brings home TONS of fun goodies for the kids! (Although those noisy plastic clapping hands had to go ASAP.)

[Blackcat31]

I have a question...

If we are saying that marriage is a religious term that should only apply to a heterosexual relationships, does that then mean that those who get married in a courthouse, who have not had a religious ceremony are not legally married, rather they are participants in a civil union? I mean, if marriage is a religious term, and one does not participate in a religious ceremony, how can they then be married?

For me personally? I believe a "marriage" is a union of two heterosexual people who joined together in a religious ceremony in a church by a priest/pastor or minister and the union is now recognized by God.

For others who choose to "marry" outside the sanctuary of a church without the religious meaning....then yes, if you want to get technical, I personally would consider that a civil union or legal commitment.

That is MY PERSONAL belief. HOWEVER, I would not judge or tell someone else what they can or can't do.

I believe others should do what is right for them. I personally would never have gotten married by anyone other than a priest/pastor or minister and I would not have considered having any type of ceremony that was not religious based.

What about Buddhists? As far as I know, Buddha never mentioned the gays, so can Buddhist gay people get married? What about Buddhist straight people? How about the atheists? Since they don't believe in God, do they then not have the right to get married?

I can't answer any of these questions because I don't believe as a Buddhist would or does. I LOVE learning about other religions because I do think knowledge is key to tolerance and acceptance but I don't follow or believe the same things as a Buddhist does so their definition of marriage is completely different than mine.

I just don't see how applying a Christian definition, that not even all Christians agree on, can be acceptable when used to prohibit individual rights?.

I was NOT and am NOT applying my Christian definition of marriage to anyone other than me. Others are free to call it what they choose. I simply stated my own personal beliefs. I am not naïve enough to think that MY way is the only way...just what I believe.

If one believes that marriage is only between a man and a women, then by all means, that should marry that way, attend church that way...but why are your beliefs more important than mine? My church is A-OK with the gays, why does someone else's church get to decide what's appropriate for mine? Isn't this why we have a separation between Church and State????

I would never view my beliefs as any more important than the next person's beliefs but my beliefs are the most important to me. So yes, I married in the manner in which I believe is right and true and what others do is up to them.

I believe in the end of it all, the way you lived your life and the choices you made are all between you and whatever higher entity (if any) you believe in.

I just think the whole debate is illogical.

I think ALL controversial subjects are illogical in one way or another as the nature of controversial subjects is that they don't fit neatly into any one definition or one nice tidy little box.

Controversial topics are illogical because there is no one right or wrong answer and most of the arguments people have for one side or another are based solely on individual beliefs and individual beliefs aren't based on black and white sides but rather on faith.

I definitely don't have all the answers to everything in life so I am limited to allowing my personal set of beliefs be my guiding force and what keeps me from doing certain things and to continue doing other things. NOT saying MY way is better or more right than anyone else's but it is what guides me and influences my choices and actions in life.

so for me it is the right way.

[jen]

Thank you Blackcat, please know that the "you" was not you in particular, the greater "you." LOL.

[SilverSabre25]

I get caught up in the fact that
a) whether or not homosexuality is okay is a religious issue, NOT a government issue
b) Separation of Church and State means that the state is not allowed to legislate religion
c) There is no "State Religion" in our country
d) Ergo, the government has NO GROUNDS to make laws prohibiting anyone from marrying anyone else. Civil/courthouse marriages are legal and binding, and the church side is really just for convention and to be married "before God" or whatever.
e) Churches DO have a right to decide not to marry a couple, on whatever grounds they choose based on their own beliefs. They do already, in fact, and that's great.
f) I think that the only grounds ANY government has to legislate marriage is make a legal definition involving age/consent/etc.
g) read between the lines and you'll see that I also don't think that the state has any right to say how many people can marry...because it's a RELIGIOUS ISSUE.
h) this got long, 'grats if you're still reading

[just_peachy]

My political beliefs and my religious beliefs often conflict. It wasn't until the last election that I became okay with this!

[Blackcat31]

Thank you Blackcat, please know that the "you" was not you in particular, the greater "you." LOL.

I know.

I just figured since I gave my personal opinion earlier, I should also back it up if someone were to question it.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself as I have never walked a single centimeter in someone else's shoes so I can't speak for anyone but me.

[craftymissbeth]

For me, it's none of my business.

I do have a question, though... out of curiosity, when did the church (or whatever religious entity) "invent" marriage. Were there no marriages before that point? I've never heard someone say "marriage was created by such-and-such religious entity and it did not exist before that, therefore marriage is solely a religious experience". If the bible is the source, then marriage did not exist before the bible was written?

I just can't wrap my little ole brain around the belief that marriage is only a religious experience and everyone else must call it a civil union. :confused:

[AfterSchoolMom]

Everyone should have the right to marry (with full benefits) anyone that makes them happy. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

[EntropyControlSpecialist]

For me, it's none of my business.

I do have a question, though... out of curiosity, when did the church (or whatever religious entity) "invent" marriage. Were there no marriages before that point? I've never heard someone say "marriage was created by such-and-such religious entity and it did not exist before that, therefore marriage is solely a religious experience". If the bible is the source, then marriage did not exist before the bible was written?

I just can't wrap my little ole brain around the belief that marriage is only a religious experience and everyone else must call it a civil union. :confused:

Marriage was invented by God when the FIRST people were placed on this earth (Adam and Eve), specifically for a man and a woman. Marriage mirrors God's covenant relationship with His people.

[Live and Learn]

Due to the supreme court hearing a case on the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, our local news stations have been interviewing a lot of local residents on both sides of the issue.

They keep interviewing this one Christian woman who is whole heatedly against equal rights for LGBT. Her main complaint is that marriage is made for a man and a woman to conceive childen to serve her god.

Whenever I hear this I always think about the couples who were married for years and did not have kids whether by choice or infertility. Are the marriages failures in her eyes? Are they failures in her god's eyes? Is their marriage somehow just a civil union because they don't have kids? What if you get married in a church and don't have kids? What if you don't get married in a church and have lots of kids? Which marriage is more legitimate in her eyes or her god's eyes I wonder? What about hetero couples who get married in a church and never have biological children together. Let's say they adopt instead. Is their marriage not legit because they didn't procreate?

On a side note....my next door neighbor (whose house is decorated in crosses, has Jesus bumper stickers, wears all sorts of cross necklaces, earrings, sweatshirts, and sends the most over the top religious holiday cards) has been married in a church twice and now divorced twice. Somehow her failed marriages are legit and my single marriage of 26 years isn't because my wedding wasn't in a church? That is crazy talk to me.

I say let any two adults who love each other marry.

[jen]

Marriage was invented by God when the FIRST people were placed on this earth (Adam and Eve), specifically for a man and a woman. Marriage mirrors God's covenant relationship with His people.

So, what about non-Christian people? Do you discount the legitimacy of their marriage and/or religion?

(Not snarky, seriously asking...)

[nannyde]

So, what about non-Christian people? Do you discount the legitimacy of their marriage and/or religion?

(Not snarky, seriously asking...)

That's what I want to know.

[daycarediva]

I am ALL for separation of church and state, so I don't think "the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman" should EVER be brought into a court case.

[jokalima]

I personally don't care what other people do.

However with that said, I do think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

That doesn't mean though that I don't think gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to have civil unions or be lawfully joined so they too can receive the benefits and perks that married folks do.

I just don't agree with the term "marriage" and although others may feel that is wrong or not socially acceptable, I don't care. It is what I believe and that isn't going to change.

I have no issues with gay/lesbian couples who want to raise children and do all the same things other couples do. I am not one bit prejudice or biased against anyone who wants to be in a committed relationship with the person they love. Whether that person is the same sex as them or not.

Exactly this but with the difference I don't think they should adopt. I think that deliberately denying a child of a mom/dad figure is not fare.

I am a Christian and I believe that only Christians should follow God's commandments so, there is no way I can tell an Atheist to live according to God's principles because is not going to happen, so same way with Gay couples.

I hear and read a lot ( not only here ) about State/Church separation, but for me is more than that, is also a matter of respect. Some say that the case of the gay couple that could not get married in the place they wanted in NJ is valid because it was not a Church or a official religious building. That is where the respect part comes from, OK, let's say is not officially a religious building but it is in religious grounds, the Church people are telling you that is against their beliefs to rent that to you and that it will be a great conflict with their faith because the building IT IS used for religious ceremonies. Why can't you respect that? Why sue the church? Isn't that doing what you claim Christians do all the time?
I believe they should have the freedom to be with whoever they want, have a civil union completely separated from what is a religious marriage and that the pastors/priests can have the choice to refuse to marry w/out consequences.