jewscout said:
Here's my 2 cents,
I beleive that homosexual couples should be given a secular institution, call it civil unions or whatever, where they are given all the exact same legal protection and benefits of a heterosexual couple, just don't call it marriage.
To be honest, I'm sick of this argument. I don't want to be civil unioned. I want to get married. Don't like it? Tough turkey.
Marriage is as much a religious institution as it is a legal one.
You know, that's the funny part. Some religions
do recognize homosexual marriage as marriage. Whoops, there goes that argument.
I don't think any religious group should be forced to marry couples of the same sex if it is against their beliefs.
This I agree to. Which is why I'm glad there are gay-supporting Christian churches out there that would be more than happy to marry homosexual couples.
Heterosexual couples can be "married" in a legal secular ceremony at a courthouse, homosexuals should be given a similar thing.
And a religious ceremony, just like heterosexual couples. Before anyone jumps me, I don't mean it has to be Christian. Though I'm sure there are no few Christians out there willing to perform a religious ceremony for homosexuals.
What we shouldn't do is force people to accept something they aren't going to.
You can't force someone to accept anything. All that can be done is education. Ignorance < Intelligence.
This isn't as simple as the civil rights movement or women's rights were.
'Simple as the civil rights movement'? How is it NOT simple? We deserve rights. Period. People will disagree with it, but that doesn't mean we don't deserve them.
People are quoting verbatum from the Book of Leviticus and using it as justification for not only denying homosexuals the rights of marriage but also denying them humanity on many levels.
Which is a sick and disgusting thing, and shows they don't have the intelligence to make their own argument.
Look same sex couples should be allowed to have equal legal protection, the right to raise children if they are found to be as fit as any heterosexual couple (cause i don't care if your gay or straight if ya ain't fit to raise a child you shouldn't be given one PERIOD), but understand that many religious groups won't accept them as "married" in the traditional sense.
Considering the amount of people that don't accept homosexuals PERIOD, I don't think that really matters right now. It isn't a matter of getting accepting, it's a matter of getting rights.
Look, i say allow them civil unions and if you can find a rabbi or priest or pastor or imam or whatever to administer the ceremony as opposed to a judge or secular administrator more power to you but don't FORCE the religions of this government to do something that is against their practices. Government is not supposed to be in the business of religion and vice versa.
Except for the civil unions part, I agree with you. The government has no business telling churches how to do things. Unless you've got something like the Catholic priest stuff going on.
One more thing not to be a jacka$$ or anything but if you're going to allow people of the same sex to be married why don't we allow ALL unions? I mean, i can love my dog can't i? What about polygamy? Should a bi-sexual woman be allowed to marry a man and a woman at the same time? Or a bi-sexual man?
Not to be a 'jacka$$,' but you succeeded at being one. That argument is the weakest one against gay marriage in existence. I think it's been beaten to death several times earlier in this thread, but I'll repeat it.
Here, I'll even do it in big letters to get the point across.
GAY MARRIAGE WOULD BE THE UNION OF TWO (COUNT EM, TWO) CONSENTING ADULTS. NOT MANY, NOT A MAN AND A DOG, TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN.
Clear enough for you? Do I need to use smaller words? A bigger font?
And on a sidenote, bisexual does not mean polygamous.
You may think that's a ridiculous thing to say but think about it, a century ago would that not have been the reaction of "middle America" to the question of same-sex marriage?
And what would their reaction to women or blacks voting be? Or maybe their reaction to a white man and a black woman marrying? I doubt they would have reacted well. Well, guess that settles it! Time to take away black and women's rights.
People (including myself) make a big stink when religion pokes its nose into secular institutions like schools crying "seperation of Church and State". Now when the tables are reversed, the state intervening in the church those same people don't see the double standard.
See, that's the thing. Marriage isn't only religious, nor is it only Christian. Since you don't like the government telling churches how to do things, would you be okay with them letting two gay neo-pagans marry under the ceremony of a high priest or priestess and get marriage benefits?
Wow, that all came out angrier than I intended. My apologies. I blame it on the impending election.
