TOPIC: Opinion on Gay marriage?

cannonfury2006

I really don't care, none of my business. That's between that person and God.

christimw

Every word Sue just said.

To me, telling someone they can't marry because of the Bible is like saying you can't married because Zeus or Isis or Thor said so.

Yes yes yes! Anyone who wants to get married should be able to, and it infuriates me and breaks my heart that there are so many people who truly love each other can't even have this basic right.

dfborders

None of my business and the only argument you really hear from anyone is the religious argument. So I'm not really sure how the government can step in and say they aren't going to legalize gay marriage based on a religious definition - separation of church and state. On the other hand if they do legalize gay marriage then people need to understand that certain churches due to their religious beliefs may not bless that union as is their right - separation of church and state. Just like my husband and I (man and woman) were married by a justice of the peace outside in a yard in front of our boat under the bright blue sky - our marriage has never been blessed by a religious faction but it is still legal.

leejayem

It has been repeatedly asserted that the law as it currently stands unjustly discriminates
against same-sex couples by not allowing them to marry. We (hopefully) all agree that equality in human dignity and equality before the law ought to be guaranteed by law and promoted in other ways in our society. It is unjust to discriminate against people on the basis of age, religion, race, sex, etc. unless these are relevant: but age is relevant
when it comes to voting or superannuation, religion is relevant to employment in Church schools, race is relevant in various programmes to forward the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, sex is relevant on admission to a women’s hospital, and so on. To equate opposition to ‘same-sex marriage’ with opposition to,say, Indigenous enfranchisement, is radically to misapprehend or deliberately to misrepresent the arguments of those who support the classical understanding of marriage. Indeed it is deeply insulting to suggest, as some have done explicitly or
implicitly, that those who have supported the classical understanding of marriage, are guilty of an ingrained prejudice akin to racism. Retaining the classical definition of marriage, as it currently stands in the Marriage Act,is not unjust discrimination. It is a requirement of justice and the common good that we treat different cases differently. Simply stated, marriage between a man and a woman is different from other human bonds because it involves a ‘comprehensive union’ of spouses, a special link to children and a pledge of permanence and exclusivity.

Opponents of this view of marriage argue that it is love or commitment that is the only essential ingredient of marriage. On this view, the sexual orientation of the two people in the relationship is irrelevant. But the state has no reason to regulate, and in fact has no business in regulating, merely emotional relationships. It is not the business of the state to say who may be friends or to recognise friendships per se, even highly committed, life-long friendships. If emotional connection were the sole criterion by which the state is to determine what constitutes marriage, it is difficult to see why, say, two unmarried sisters who have lived together their entire lives and are deeply committed to each other, could not marry. A similar thing could be said about a three-way sexual relationship. The list could go on.

leejayem

As a lesbian you can probably figure out where I stand on this subject without me directly saying it. For those that have brought religion into this conversation and said due to religious beliefs they are against it, well if you are going to keep us from marrying the ones we love then the bible also discusses divorce and you take vow "to have and hold till death do us part". Let's make divorce illegal which means heterosexuals better make a good decision when getting married because you will be stuck with them forever no matter how much you grow to hate them because the bible speaks against divorce.

Believe it or not some of us do take the "til death do us part" bit very seriously. I personally wouldn't mind a bit if divorce was illegal!!

126siany

It has been repeatedly asserted that the law as it currently stands unjustly discriminates
against same-sex couples by not allowing them to marry. We (hopefully) all agree that equality in human dignity and equality before the law ought to be guaranteed by law and promoted in other ways in our society. It is unjust to discriminate against people on the basis of age, religion, race, sex, etc. unless these are relevant: but age is relevant
when it comes to voting or superannuation, religion is relevant to employment in Church schools, race is relevant in various programmes to forward the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, sex is relevant on admission to a women’s hospital, and so on. To equate opposition to ‘same-sex marriage’ with opposition to,say, Indigenous enfranchisement, is radically to misapprehend or deliberately to misrepresent the arguments of those who support the classical understanding of marriage. Indeed it is deeply insulting to suggest, as some have done explicitly or
implicitly, that those who have supported the classical understanding of marriage, are guilty of an ingrained prejudice akin to racism. Retaining the classical definition of marriage, as it currently stands in the Marriage Act,is not unjust discrimination. It is a requirement of justice and the common good that we treat different cases differently.Simply stated, marriage between a man and a woman is different from other human bonds because it involves a ‘comprehensive union’ of spouses, a special link to children and a pledge of permanence and exclusivity. [

Opponents of this view of marriage argue that it is love or commitment that is the only essential ingredient of marriage. On this view, the sexual orientation of the two people in the relationship is irrelevant. But the state has no reason to regulate, and in fact has no business in regulating, merely emotional relationships. It is not the business of the state to say who may be friends or to recognise friendships per se, even highly committed, life-long friendships. If emotional connection were the sole criterion by which the state is to determine what constitutes marriage, it is difficult to see why, say, two unmarried sisters who have lived together their entire lives and are deeply committed to each other, could not marry. A similar thing could be said about a three-way sexual relationship. The list could go on.

"Simply stated, marriage between a man and a woman is different from other human bonds because it involves a ‘comprehensive union’ of spouses, a special link to children and a pledge of permanence and exclusivity."

How is that different from a same-sex marriage? Plenty of same-sex families include raising children, and plenty of heterosexual unions don't produce children (either can't or simply chose no to).

georgie181

not bothered really have many gay friends and I am not religious. I read a bit of the bible a couple of weeks ago out of curiosity and was not impressed..............its a very romantic idea heaven and god etc etc, but for someone very interested in science as I am, religious ideals conflict voilently with my scientific and logical mind.........

FlaxMilk

1000% in support. It shouldn't even be an issue as long as marriage is in the legal system and not just the religious system. It doesn't matter whether anyone has children or not--when you sign up for a marriage contract, you swear not to have certain STD's and that you aren't drunk, not that you will have children. In certain religious ceremonies, you say you want kids.

There is no concern of anyone trying to force religious institutions to marry gay people--they already have the right to say no to any straight person they want. I can't imagine droves of gay people wanting to be married by someone who doesn't want to perform their ceremony anyway.

christimw

As a lesbian you can probably figure out where I stand on this subject without me directly saying it. For those that have brought religion into this conversation and said due to religious beliefs they are against it, well if you are going to keep us from marrying the ones we love then the bible also discusses divorce and you take vow "to have and hold till death do us part". Let's make divorce illegal which means heterosexuals better make a good decision when getting married because you will be stuck with them forever no matter how much you grow to hate them because the bible speaks against divorce.

Believe it or not some of us do take the "til death do us part" bit very seriously. I personally wouldn't mind a bit if divorce was illegal!!

I told my husband he better make sure I was the one he wanted because I will NEVER have an ex husband. If later on down the road something happens and we were to separate, he better not bring divorce papers because I won't sign them. It's a personal thing.

DoomCakes

As a lesbian you can probably figure out where I stand on this subject without me directly saying it. For those that have brought religion into this conversation and said due to religious beliefs they are against it, well if you are going to keep us from marrying the ones we love then the bible also discusses divorce and you take vow "to have and hold till death do us part". Let's make divorce illegal which means heterosexuals better make a good decision when getting married because you will be stuck with them forever no matter how much you grow to hate them because the bible speaks against divorce.

Believe it or not some of us do take the "til death do us part" bit very seriously. I personally wouldn't mind a bit if divorce was illegal!!

That's a damn good idea... I support this!

FlaxMilk

Here's a question:

How do the people who believe it should be illegal based on religious values feel about the fact that some churches and religions feel that gay marriage should be legal? Aren't we discriminating against them by preventing them from carrying out a religious ceremony with the same legal weight as a religious ceremony performed for two straight people?

crimsoncat

I'm agnostic so I have no religious views prohibiting this. I just wish marriage wasn't a legal AND religious term so we wouldn't have this debate. If we all had civil unions for legal and marriage was use exclusively by the church, I think this debate would be a tiny bit better.

FlaxMilk

Those in support of banning divorce should be aware that most children who live with parents who are unhappy together are hurt more by them staying together than divorcing.

Again, marriage is a legal contract, not just a religious one. People can break all kinds of legal contracts, there are just usually penalties. In the case of divorce, that penalty is usually financial.

RealWomenLovePitbulls

who someone is in a relationship is their business. if 2 people are in love, then let them be. it does not effect me in anyway.

sowonderfultonight

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

crimsoncat

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Nailed it.

creech6317

Does anyone read the bible ??

Yep, I have read a good portion of the Bible. It has some interesting stories. But I have also read collections of the Greek, Celtic, and Nordic mythology. What does that have to do with anything? If it isn't your religion, what does it matter?

danabromley

I most definitely don't care who a person marries, as long as they're good to each other. I had to deal with this issue head on about 5 years ago. So I know for sure on my answer to this topic. My daughter married her partner about 5 years ago, and they actually live with us. I love them both.

desiv2

I'm all for it! Bring it on!

desiv2

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Wish I could 'thumbs up' this post!