Gay Marriage

Yet we can't disregard its religious ties either.

Since marriage is a religious ceremony that was implemented into law, we must either remove it from law or change the definition of marriage to solve this dispute. Since changing the definition tramples on religious beliefs and removing it from law will only cause problems, neither option is appealing to either side of the debate.

Therefore, as far as I can see, the only answer to the marriage debate is to enforce an equivalent bonding between two human beings into law, with absolutely no religious ties. The only difference it would be from marriage would simply be its name, and its religious origins. Honestly I don't see why homosexuals would frown on the decision as the religious origins of marriage contrast with gay marriage itself.

/enter debate.

 

Ah, you misunderstand. I speak of a marriage ceremony that is supposedly sanctioned by a deity. Not a simple "we are committed to be together" type of thing. In many cultures, marriage had or has no ceremony and people can even be "married" just by sleeping together. If you consider marriage the point at which a couple starts calling themselves spouses then by all means, carry on and ignore what I said. If you believe that there needs to be a ceremony and that a god is involved, then please do not.

I am telling you what I feel your position should be. I did not use the word 'believe'.

I fully understand that. I am explicitly stating that those legal privileges should be dissolved. I am against love ever being based in or connected to a legally binding contract.

I feel that Christians, whether they oppose legal marriage or not, should opt to remove all legality from marriage instead of trying to force the legal system to conform to the church's wish to ban homosexual marriage or having the legal system force a church to allow it. If the legal aspect of marriage was taken out or a separate rite was written for church's marriage so that it was not legally binding, there would be no conflict. As it is they are overlapping. I seek to remove church and state from each other on the issue, essentially.

I agree fully; however, I am also against any and all of the legal privileges as they are being called. I will always opt against contractual love. However, both your suggestion and mine are valid solutions.

 

In regards to the legal privileges of marriage, I agree with you on your ideal. However it is not so simple as getting rid of them. A significantly LARGE portion of U.S. citizens are currently benefiting from those privileges, and to simply take them away would cause unfathomable protest. To remove those same privileges from what could be a homosexual's alternative to marriage will most definitely be misinterpreted as an act of descrimination, and will also cause unfathomable protest. They are simply a thorn that's been pushed too deep to ply out.

 

Thank you, Makaze, for saying what I have been trying to say the entire thread.

I believe that the best solution to this would be to implement both of your solutions. First, erase all connection between marriage and law. Frankly, I don't see how the current marriage system doesn't violate separation of church and state. Then, set up a new secular system like the California Domestic Partnership system (Which is exclusively for homosexuals and gives the exact same rights and benefits that a marriage does now), but make it for all sexual orientations. That way Christians can get married and then get their legal partnership, completely separately, and gays can just get their partnership. All married couples now can just apply for a partnership, and continue with their lives.

Everyone wins!

 

It's funny how the solution for the "take marriage out of the law or not," is simply....GIVE EVERYONE MARRIAGE RIGHTS! Therefore no marriage privileges will have to be dissolved.

 

I reject this. Marriage is a religious institution and should not be associated with the law. It should not be a legal right to get married at all.

 

It's a little too late for that. Marriage is already part of the law. Doubt they would get rid of it anytime soon.

 

Oh it does, it's just been overlooked and has survived for so long as a law that it's been implemented deep into American culture.

Similar to what I've said to Makaze, I agree with this. But (as a continuation to the reply of above quote) the only negative side effect I can see occurring from this plan is the protest of an age-old tradition that's engraved itself for so many long years as both a part of America's law and culture. People will not approve of the face of that idea, no matter how you word it. It's sad and unfortunate, but true.

With this in mind, we could either lay down logic on the hearts of the people (a very dangerous prospect) or appease them by leaving regular marriage as is and simply insert a separate, non-religious version of it. I am pro-latter.

 

Okay...well, this thread is completely hypothetical anyway. Hypothetically, they should erase it from the law. It might never happen, but that would be the right thing to do.

Edit- Mako, I do not believe erasing marriage from the law would be a big deal if an alternative that gave the same rights was offered.

 

But what can an alternative be? Cause marriage just seems like the ultimate alliance to one another. (pity people are abusing it and just divorcing a few months later =.=)

 

That's not the issue, the issue is the tax benefits associated with marriage. Nothing is stopping gay people from making an ultimate alliance to one another, but they are being denied the same rights as married couples. They are not denied these rights in California if they get a domestic partnership, I believe it should be the same way everywhere else too.

 

You can never tell how people will react when a negative aspect is directed to a part of their religion. Some might argue that the legal benefits combined with their spiritual bonding is what makes the whole point of a legal contract special, others could twist the decision around to argue it's discrimination against religion. Not everyone who is pro-marriage will understand the logic behind these arguments.

Again, this mindset is a result of marriage's implementation into culture. Marriage will still exist if removed from law, just as a spiritual bonding, not a legal one.

 

I am disappointed that I basically made the same argument as Makaze 4 pages ago and everybody ignored it. I see how it is. I'll just go over to this corner and weep.

Something similar to the California Domestic Partnership system like Slaughtermatic mentioned earlier. We don't need to replace it with something completely different. We just to separate being legally married and having your marriage acknowledged by a religious organization. Technically the two are already separated but people are trying to change the doctrine of Christianity and other religions to acknowledge it. One doesn't need to marry at a church for it to be considered a marriage under the law. One just needs to sign the papers and under the law you're married.

 

I didn't ignore, I just forgot about it when the thread was revived. Sorry, friend.

I forgot to explicitly say, but aside from the rest, I am not for gay marriage because I am not for marriage of any kind, so the entire point is kind of moot to me without laws.

It seems that we are back on topic and we are instead discussing marriage itself. My work here is done, for now.

 

Meh, I disagree. I mean, do we see millions of people rallying because creation isn't taught in public schools? No, because we recognize that church and state are separated, I think splitting marriage from law would just be an enforcement of that, and I think most Christians with half a brain would support it. I mean, people don't realize it but separation of church and state was originally instituted to prevent the state from corrupting the church, not the other way around. And that state's involvement in marriage basically has corrupted it. Seriously, look at how corrupt a system marriage is.

 

To some extent I agree with you, in that riots will not plague the streets and homosexuals won't be murdered in cold blood. But there will be opposition, no matter how minor.

Whether or not the purpose of "separation of church and state" was meant to keep the church from being corrupted is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the church has corrupted the state. This whole debate itself is proof. The topic is gay marriage, but do the majority of religious debaters address marriage itself as a topic? No. They argue that the bible is against it, therefore it is law. That is corruption. Most do not express sentiments for homosexuals in their plight of not receiving the same rights as married couples; they jump straight to their religious rights.

And why? Because it threatens their religion. There is little logic in these arguments because their spiritual beliefs are threatened, not their logical ones. It is obvious that homosexuals deserve the benefits of marriage, yet it is not so because the religious issue has been glamorized. The same resistance will be met should marriage be removed from law, but I concede that it will be on a FAR lesser scale. But there will be resistance nonetheless.

 

Some questions for people against gay marriage. Why? How is it wrong?(if you say cause the bible said so, that is not your own opinion, you are just referencing a book written by someone else opinion) Is it hurting anyone? Is it hurting you? Do you need to even associate yourself with these homosexuals?

I have no idea how you can say yes to the last three questions.

Gay marriage should be allowed.
Why? It is a symbol of the ultimate oath to be with the one you love, where both will support and love one another.

Is it hurting anyone? NOPE

Is it hurting you? NOPE

Do you need to even associate yourself with homosexuals? No, but some of them are just so awesome.

 

You are literally ignoring everything we've been saying in this thread. Marriage is a religious institution, a promise made under the God of the Bible. And it simply does not condone homosexual marriage. Asking why it's wrong for gays to get married is like asking why it's wrong for non-Jews to have bar mitzvahs. That's a different belief system, we don't fit into it. It would be wrong to compromise the Jewish faith, why should they have to change their beliefs to accommodate us? And why would we want to barge into their system anyway?

As for those three questions, they're non-sequitur, literally completely irrelevant to the argument. It's like saying "Is gay marriage harmful the the environment? No, so it should be allowed!"

 

But you're ignoring the fact that marriage is also a legally binding contract. And that is very much in the interest of the state. So then, when does marriage become something for people who are kosher to the bible and religion, and when does it become something that is in the state's interest?

You are also forgetting about the cultural aspect of marriage. Maybe it was something that originated in the bible, but you hardly have people looking for its roots. It's become a tradition, just like how people pray even when they don't follow a particular religion or how they say "oh god" it doesn't mean they're religious. It just means such things have been ingrained in the culture.

Marriage may have been established by god, but I would say that people should decide wether they want to be married by the state or by the church. If the church doesn't allow gay marriage, that should have no stock in a legally binding contract like marrying by the state.

 

Open-minded Christian opinion ahoy. (also skipping 8 pages cause forget that noise)

I can't remember if I posted this waaaaaaaaaaay back in another thread similar to this one, but I've yet to see in the Bible where homosexuality is actually frowned upon by God. I remember there was something about Sodom, which may have been where people got that idea. Copypasta from Wikipedia.

So yeah, thats probably where the idea came from: stories about a few places of the most extreme situations where men were treating little boys as little more than sex slaves. Horrible, but not something to put upon every gay person. I know quite a few gay people, and I still love them as much as my straight friends. I don't see their gender as their identity, though it does add a little to their personality I think. Still, I'm not like "Hey, its my gay friend!"

And there's also the whole church-state divide that needs to be implemented better in the US...

I literally see no problems that arise from allowing homosexual marriage, aside from massive amounts of butt-hurt. Why wouldn't you let people who are in love gain the same benefits many heterosexual couples enjoy already?