Gay Marrige

A wedding ceremony is a religious ceremony and since most religions look down upon homosexuality its hypocritical almost. But thats just a small thought that I've heard bounced about.

i have no problem with gay relationships but i have to agree with phoenix on the whole religious ceremony thing b/c religious gay marriages don't really happen. isn't there that commonlaw marriage thing in Canada though?

i personally don't have anything against gays but i don't think that gay marriage should be made legal or whatever. i mean, why do they NEED to get married? if they say they love each other as much as they do, then they don't need a piece of paper as proof or to bound them together. i don't view it as necessary. they can be together without getting married, it just proves their love is that much stronger. i have nothing against them though; as long as they're happy, that's quite all right with me.

MysteriousPheonix-If marriage is a religious ceremony, then why do you have to get it approved by the state? In the U.S., it is essentially violating the separation of church and state then. The issue may be deeper than we know it. *just a thought though.

Sweetcandy-In U.S., married couples get benefits that single people don't, including a better chance of adopting a child, split accounts, easier to leave that person in your will, etc...so it's a little more than simply loving a person, while that is really important as well.

I don't necessarily support or negate these views, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

...something I want to throw out there:
if saying that you love each other is supposed to be enough for homosexual couples, why isn't it enough for heterosexual couples?
I am very close to the gay marriage debate, my mom and my best friend's mom are both gay...I love my mom so much and I want her to do what makes her happy, I wish the best for my friend's mom, but she is afraid to let anyone know...
Basically, yes, marriage IS a religious ceremony, but I know PLENTY of homosexuals that are Christian or belong strongly to another religion. Who are we to say which religion is "right", I don't agree with a lot of things that some religions do, whether it be the degradation of women, the infliction of pain in order to "heal", or the wars waged in the name of "God"...but just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean that these things shouldn't be permitted. Everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs, but I think that as AMERICANS we need to at least acknowledge that other beliefs are out there...
One more thing, why is this country so sure that Protestantism is the "right" religion? Seriously, if you look at the statistics, it is NOT the most popular religion worldwide...

I kinda got off topic but I think you guys get the point...

i just don't understand why people would try to ban gay marriage. i mean, ok, it might be part of your religion to be against gay marriage but you have no right to impose that on anyone else who may have very different beliefs. i think everyone deserves the same rights to be with the one they love no matter who that is.

Nymcha-Mostly because people think that their ideas are the right ones :) And there's that whole issue about whether or not marriage is a political or religious thing. If it's political, then why doesn't it apply to everyone? If it's religious, why does the state have to authorize it? If it's both, then doesn't that mix church and state?
...again...just thoughts

sweetcandy_210;71831 wrote:i mean, why do they NEED to get married?

Perhaps I can answer this. Freedom is not contingent upon need, but upon desire: freedom is only meaningful as it relates to the ability to enact ones own desires into reality. Why does a person "need" to have freedom of speech? After all, humanity survived long enough without it. The reason a person "needs" freedom of speech is because people have a right to liberty. Being able to criticise the government isn't a physical or even a mental need, but we recognise today that it is important that people be able to do so because people ought to be able to do ANYTHING so long as it doesn't harm the rights of others.

Could not the racist ask "Why do black people NEED to sit at the front of the bus? Why do they NEED to drink of the same water fountains? Why do they NEED to go to the same schools?" - the reason is because black people have rights to their own liberty, same as anyone else, and thus degrading them by forcing them to the back of the bus or to different drinking foundations or to different schools is a violation of their right to liberty and of their dignity as humans.

Gay people don't *need* to get married: they have survived long enough without it. But barring them from doing so infringes on their liberty and it tells them "You are inferior because of your homosexuality" - this is immoral and contrary to the nature of freedom.

Quote:? if they say they love each other as much as they do, then they don't need a piece of paper as proof or to bound them together.

If it is just a "piece of paper", then why not simply ban all marriage and be done with it? Clearly it has importance to most people beyond simply being a "piece of paper". I'm sure, if given the choice, most people would choose to be married rather than to just receive a $0.01 piece of paper. It has psychological significance beyond merely the documents filed.

It has significance of equality, too. Suppose that everyone in a certain classroom is given a candy bar each day they attend class. However, the professor is a racist and refuses to give any food to students who are black. Do people *need* a candy bar in order to affirm their worth? No, but what it does is it sends the message "You are inferior because of the colour of your skin" - it doesn't matter whether we're talking about candy bars or bus seats or marriage. Any time most people are given some thing X, but some group is excluded because of irrelevant consideration Y, it is degrading and immoral.

Finally, marriage gives rights far beyond simply the "piece of paper", including property, medical, taxation, visitation, and immigration rights. Indeed, there are over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that are withheld federally from gay couples.

Quote: it just proves their love is that much stronger.

This argument is unconvincing. Suppose that we were to also amputate the right arm of any gay person...if they were to undergo such a sacrifice, wouldn't that also prove that their love is that much stronger? Perhaps, but it would be a human rights atrocity, which is why we don't do it.

The argument you put forth is akin to beating a child and then justifying it by saying "Well, the child will be stronger for it". Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, because it takes away the child's liberty.

well to testify against gay rights.......first it said in the bible that being gay is a sin. i know some ppl dont believe that but it is true i think well that i know of. and second sometimes being gay if because of genes ussually

being gay isn't genetic. i know some people are worried about a gay or lesbian couple raising kids and how they will turn out, but they can be good parents too. also, in terms of the bible, it can be argued either way. check out [URL=http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/]http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate...