a new ban just passed here in California, but the fight s still going on.
i am just curious.
what are your guys' views on the topic.
Printable View
a new ban just passed here in California, but the fight s still going on.
i am just curious.
what are your guys' views on the topic.
This should be locked before war breaks out. Some people can't handle political discussions. I agree they should be able to be married in the legal sense. I don't think they can be married for real IE. religious ceremony. Since marriage is a religious ceremony and it wouldn't be allowed by the rules of the ceremony. Like you can kick and scream all you want, but wouldn't you have to change god's mind? Or the Vatican in a more practical sense. Because a gay couple would be forced to use a judge to marry them because a priest wouldn't do it?
That's what i always thought, and why i found the whole fighting over it thing kinda silly. Like why do some religious people say they can't call themselves married? They should know that by the rules of their religion, they can't be married in god's eye's, just the law's. So why do they even care? But I guess it's the nature of some religious clicks to get into other people's business.
i know what you mean serpent.
i just don't get why they didn't put a compromise Canada did it.
gay marriage will be legal,but churches have to choose for themselves if they will decide to marry gay couples.
and this shouldn't be a problem, since i have seen churches open about their views.
Yes, if they belong to a church that allows it then you think they would be allowed to under freedom of religion. Probably are, i'm guessing the california law pertains to legal status? That's the only thing the state should be in control of. Which is trickier, i'd be curios to know how it passed. You think something like this would go to public vote. If a ban passed by public vote, then i guess it should pass. That's democracy. There are always other states if that's really what matters to the persons. Then again, i'm not even a US citizen, so i kinda feel likes it not even any of my business. Good things it's the internet so i can pertend like it is.:D
yeah.
it was more of legal status. but fundamentalists still went out and did their thing.
ok.
no problem
My biggest problem against proponents of the anti-gay marriage is that a vast majority fail to realize that the concept of marriage predates even organized paganism. Primitive societies practiced marriage before history was accurately recorded as a way to ensure safe and effective breeding because humans were rather susceptible to the elements way back when. Of course, a good number of people opposing gay marriage refuse to believe that earth is older than 6000 years despite the overwhelming evidence against such a silly concept.
If the people of today who pretend that their religion has a strict claim to the concept of marriage really want to keep such a union between a man and a woman, then, by that logic, marriage should have never changed from an act of economic necessity to an act of love and affection. Oh, but silly me, I am forgetting that it is God's plan to smite the homosexual agenda that He created just as much as it was His plan to marry people that absolutely detested each other (i.e. arranged marriages). [That was sarcasm, by the way. I do not believe in any deities.]
Also, is it not amusing that people oppose gay marriage, yet they do not oppose celebrity weddings that are obviously charades and hardly last longer than a couple years? How is that any less a mockery of marriage than the joining of two homosexuals who love each other? Give me a break.
I've never heard a convincing argument as to how Larry and Walter down the street make my wife and I less married.
The problem, of course, is the conflation of two very different concepts: having a wedding and getting married. Most recognized religious leaders are empowered to perform both marriages and weddings, so the confusion is understandable, but it's important to recognize the difference.
A marriage is a legal contract, binding two individuals into a family unit. It carries certain benefits and obligations such as responsibility for each others debts and "next of kin" status when one of the individuals is hospitalized or dies. Signing the marriage license is the marriage.
A wedding, on the other hand, is a religious or cultural ceremony. It legitimizes the union in the eyes of the community, but carries no legal force. It's entirely proper for a church to decide what weddings it will perform. No Catholic priest, for example, will legitimize the union of a divorcee. On the other hand, there are churches (or cults, depending on who you ask) that recognize unions that the State will not.
I very much thank you for this accurate and truthful post. A marriage is little more than a contract, and still carries significant economic responsibilities. I do not see why two homosexuals cannot get married of marriage is nothing more than a contract between two individuals and the state, not the church. Remember, the state (in a narrow and broad sense) collects taxes; churches are exempt from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by daecon
very true. the state could use the money at these times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirfalan