i think everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want to marry, if you love someone and you wanna spend the rest of your life with them it shouldnt matter whether you are of the same or opposite genders.
true love doesnt know anything lol its blind deaf and mute.
What if it's your brother or sister?
Hey, man, if you're into that. Just make sure to try not to have kids.
Not into that, it was a hypothetical question, if you should be able to love and marry anyone you chose why not family?
everyone deserves happiness :D except Justin Bieber who I hate very very much
As a teacher in a Catholic school I see a consequence that would concern perhaps only a few, and that is that in a Christian context gay "marriage" completely destroys the meaning of marriage as a sacrament. The primary goal of marriage is the begetting of children and the mutual love and support of the spouses, neither of which runs strong in gay relationships. Sodomy is forbidden for Christians. My main concern is that once sanctioned by law, they gay lobby then moves to have anal intercourse introduced in the curriculum as a safe alternative lifestyle, and this is a dangerous lie. Homosexual relationships are taught as normal and I will never believe that they are. When it gets into the education system, it poses Christian teaches with a serious conflict of conscience, in much the same way that legal abortion does for Christian doctors.
With a great deal of respect (because I do respect that you are devout), I'm not sure how practising Christians view marriage between heterosexual atheists, or older adults who choose to marry knowing they cannot procreate. They ARE still legally able to marry. And I admit I've been out of the educational system for a long time, but even heterosexuals (Christian and otherwise, incidentally) have anal and oral intercourse, but such things were never before taught as a curriculum in schools. The 50% (+) divorce rate among heterosexuals could also belie that "mutual love and support of spouses" within the majority of heterosexual relationships. The churches have the right to refuse to marry gays, the way some used to refuse to marry interracial couples, in accordance with their beliefs. As a matter of conscience, they should also relinquish their tax exempt status; I can't imagine they'd want to be beholden to the support of taxes paid by the LGBT community.
Without getting involved in the politics or the morals of the issue. I look to nature. Men and women are made to "fit" together. Both have anatomical body parts that are biologically designed for that purpose. An anus is designed for another purpose...defecation. Yes, I know we all have preferences, and fetishes, but if you look to the natural order of things, men and women are designed for each other. Nobody can argue against this because it is a fact of nature. I point this out to you without any judgement of anyone elses preferences, but as a natural truth.
We are talking here about a very small percentage of the population - gay couples who want to marry. It is less than one per cent. Catholics make up 20% of this country. Make no mistake about it - the gay agenda has two enemies - the family and the Church. They want homosexuality taught as a natural lifestyle choice in schools and in many places they have succeeded, even to the point where a Christian parent has had to go to jail for trying to withdraw his child from the pertinent lesson. Heterosexual couples who engage in anal intercourse are just as guilty of breaking the moral law. The divorce rate is but one symptom of the widespread loss of faith in our time, but it is nowhere near as high as the rate of promiscuity in the LGBT community. I have never heard of any Christian Church refusing marriage to interracial couples, but I will take your word for it, as it would be just one more example of splintering away from the one true Church. As for the tax exempt status, that is for the government to decide. But one thing remains true whatever your belief - anal intercourse, whether between heterosexual or homosexual couples, is a dangerous health hazard.
Carissimi, this is the natural law, and anal intercourse is against nature, and is a crime in the sight of God.
I am not a Christian, so I won't even go there with what is and what is not a crime to God. I agree with you in the facts that anal intercourse is unhealthy (it's full of E. coli ) and can cause ruptures and fissures. At a personal level, I find it disgusting between anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. That's my personal view, but I won't call it a sin. That is your right with what you believe, and I respect your right to do so.
@perseverer So should hetero couples who practise anal sex not be allowed to marry? Should gay couples who don't, be allowed to?
No-one sees what goes on in the bedroom but Almighty God and far be it for me or anyone to advocate a system where big brother is always watching. Homosexuality and marriage are contradictory terms. Heterosexual couples who practise anal intercourse are violating the natural law and failing in their duty to allow every act of intercourse be open to the procreation of life.
So because they're having an unkosher type of sex, they can't really be happy? Is that it? Damn, you would think there'd be a better reason for discarding a natural, unalienable human right.
Not to mention, your God has no more place in politics or lawmaking than Thor does.
Oh, I said nothing about happiness. I can think of men who would be made happy at the thought of being legally able to have sex with young children. That does not meant hey have a right to.
But since you mention the subject, eternal happiness depends soley on adhering to the law of God.
We're talking about worldly happiness. By the way, do you mix your cloths? Do you eat pork? Do you shave your beard? If you answered yes to any of those, you have no right preaching anything from Leviticus.
What you believe happens in the afterlife should not affect policy making. What a few homosexual people do is not going to end society as we know it.
No, but it will impact on the private school in which I teach, and on every state school.
Are you going to answer my question or not? Furthermore, I've not seen any evidence of this affecting any schools anywhere in any country. You'll have to give me more than your word if you want me to believe that Fox News-like propaganda.
There was a case in Massachusetts where a Christian parent was jailed fro trying to remove his child from an elementary school lesson on the subject.
How original. Leviticus is surpassed by the New Testament which does not forbid those things. Christians view the Levitical laws as allegorical and relating to the need to do penance and avoid sin.
Ok so you don't realise how the above response answers your question, I will spell it out. As a Christian, I live by the New Testament, not the Old.
When exactly did Christ say that gays couldn't marry? And why exactly does that matter, even if he did? How does it affect you if people who are homosexual get married? Don't even start with that "destroying the foundation of marriage" crap either. The divorce rate in the US is enough to render that point useless.
Don't point out isolated cases and try to make it seem like the norm. That's what the radicals and sensationalists do.
Have you ever read gay journals and magazines? I have; I have read a heap of them. The Church should be worried, and so should families, because both are hated by the gay movement.
"The Church should be worried, and so should families, because both are hated by the gay movement." If there is disproportionate hatred for the Catholic Church (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "The" Church, but the same applies to the others) from gay people, are you remotely surprised by that? Christianity has done nothing to try to genuinely bring gay people into the fold, you just justify your own knee-jerk prejudices by digging irrelevant quotes out of the Bible and concluding that God created certain people in such a way that they would be doomed to hell if they ever fell in love with somebody. Any Church that throws that in a person's face can hardly be offended that it doesn't get their support! Never mind, plenty of other religions they can go join.
“For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. . . . Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”—Romans 1:26-27, 32
I have already explained how it affects Christians when homosexual people get married. It was that point upon which I based my answer to this question. Sodomy gets taught in schools as normal and safe behaviour, and this is objectionable to and contrary to the conscience of Christians.
First, there's nothing wrong with doing it that way unless you have a disease or are generally unclean. Second, that was never taught to me in schools, this is what I know from personal research into the subject. And quoting the bible is a moot point anyway, since Christianity has no place in the making of laws, as your founding fathers would've wanted. Is this a democracy or a theocracy? Is this the United States or Iran? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our unalienable rights. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are denying them a full life, liberty to do something entirely harmless to anyone else, and the pursuit of happiness as it applies to love. Is that not awful to you? And if not, why is it not awful to you? Are gay people animals, or are they human? Are they "abominations"? No. They're people, just like you and I, and denying them this basic human right is discriminatory and wrong.
Homosexuals are not being denied their lifestyle. They can do what they like and no-one bats an eyelid. Unless they proclaim what they are doing, no-one even knows. Their relationship is recognised for social security purposes and they have just as much legal rights as anyone else.
But changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual liaisons creates a significant problem for Christians. Please don't forget that Christians have rights too. The biggest problem is that the gay lobby, once legislations is passed legalising gay "marriage", immediately moves to have the school curriculum changed. This is what happens; this is what they do.
It is similar to the dilemma presented to Christian doctors due to the legalisation of abortion. For a Christian, it is the murder of innocent life and contrary to their conscience. But by law they have to perform this procedure. They should not be made to do this. Christians should be free to practise their professions in accordance with their conscience.
You are not an historian. Your country's law, and in fact, the law of every western country is founded upon the Judaeo - Christian law. That does not mean we are a theocracy. It just means that the law of God is in general accord with the human conscience and it has worked very well, judging by the survival of western civilisations.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What a lot I can say about this. You quote this in favour of homosexual marriage; what about the million abortions performed in your country every year?
I believe that Catholics have the right to educate their children in accordance with their beliefs and that no-one has the right to dictate otherwise. And I believe that children have the right to know the truth about human sexuality, and its sacred purpose, without being given false and misleading information by sodomites.
I'm just about done with this. Clearly neither opinion is going to be changed, and clearly we both believe we are correct to the fullest extent. So, in conclusion.
1. Whether or not you believe homosexuality is right, using sodomite is a discriminatory and hateful term.
2. Abortion is an entirely different subject that I'm not about to get into at the moment (not to mention that you can choose whether or not to be an abortionist; no one's forcing anyone)
3. This is not my country, but I do know that the founding fathers and even the founders of New York and Massachusets before them believed adamantly in the complete separation of church and state,
4. The issue of same-sex marriage and the issue of what is taught in health class are two different things, and should be treated accordingly. So far that seems to be your only point.
And 5. Christianity has been the cause of many, many unnecessary deaths all over the world since its founding, which, in my eyes, gives those who would support such actions no right to call anything else immoral.
Why are you two arguing and wasting your time. Not one of you will win the other over to a different point of view. Why not agree to disagree, and save yourselves from futile arguments, and settle for peace. You both cling to your egos. There is no peace to be found there. Let it go, or not. Just my observation.
Letting it go would be tantamount to giving ground to religious tyranny. As long as my lungs still fill with air I will never stop fighting against the brainwashing that so deeply permeates this society, even if I'm not from this country.
Easy to say "agree to disagree" when you're standing on the side of the status quo. "Hey, you're standing on my foot. Could you get off, please?" "No, I want to stand here." "But it's hurting me!" "You want me to move; I don't want to move -- let's just agree to disagree, yeah?"
You're right on one thing, though -- the religious lobby are never going to be convinced to accept gay marriage, and the democratic majority aren't going to be convinced to let go of it. Only thing to be done is to draw a line between religious marriage and civil marriage; those married in church can quickly sign a register in front of a state official to make it legal, those married civilly can continue completely ignoring the church, treating it like the irrelevant anachronism it seems determined to make itself.
Marriage already exists outside of the purview of Christian churches -- you realise this, yes? People are able to get married who are not Christians, and who various Christian institutions would refuse to marry. So why should Christians have any more authority than any other citizen in the legal definition of civil marriage? I happen to agree that if churches don't want to marry someone, they should have the right to that decision -- if they want to turn believers away from their doors, they're only shooting themselves in the foot. But why should they get to decide who gets married in the eyes of the state?
"No-one sees what goes on in the bedroom but Almighty God and far be it for me or anyone to advocate a system where big brother is always watching." So instead, you'll just assume that gay couples are being sinful and straight couples aren't. Despite the fact that you know full well plenty of straight couples are having the kind of sex you consider to be a crime against God, you're happy to ignore that fact because it doesn't support your prejudice against gay people.
winstonwelles, I said nothing of the sort. Only God knows what is in each person's conscience. If a heterosexual couple marries but violates the sacrament by committing anal intercourse, it is a grave sin in the sight of God. But legalising it is a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.
Why the **** do you not care if anal sex is illegal then? Your logic is not simply flawed, it's just nonexistent.
Very well said!
Excuse me? Where did I say that? The issue of sexual ethics has both legal and moral implications. Something that is legal is not necessarily moral. Anal intercourse is a case in point. It is a very grave offence. People will begin to realise when it is too late.
You really are coming from a place of ignorance. Can you not see that your arguments on this post are futile. The only reason to argue is to change another's point of view, and after this very lengthy argument, no one is going to change the mind of another. That is what is futile and a waste of energy and time. You are stuck in your ego so much, you want to win, even when you can't win. Can you not respect that different people have different beliefs and viewpoints? That is true tolerance. Tolerance must be from both sides or it is not tolerance but selfishness.
I support people right to chose whom they wish to be with, legally, and I do not believe that being with someone of the same sex should be illegal. Let people do what they with, it isn't harming anyone.
I support the right of adults to marry whom they love, irrespective of gender. I also try to be respectful of those who disagree, but it's not easy, because I consider them bigoted, in the same way people once were about interracial marriages.
love is love it knows no limits.
I really don't care one way or another. I'm not gonna judge people for it.
I think it is utterly ridiculous that it is even an issue.
The defences of marriage put up by opponents invoke standards which simply aren't applied to heterosexual couples who want the same thing. What kind of sex they have, whether they want children, what religion they are/how religious they are... nobody asks these questions of straight couples seeking a civil marriage. A church marriage, maybe, but not a civil one.
100% for full fledged recognition of gay marriage & all inherent rights, including the right to adopt children. So long as the Bible thumpers are able to skew the laws to treat anyone they find unacceptable as 2nd class citizens, then we are all 2nd class citizens.<br />
UPDATE TO MY ANSWER: No offense intended with the "Bible thumper" remark, except for those who truly are hate-filled Bible thumpers, in which case go fu<k yourselves. However, for those Biblical Christians who practice a faith ba<x>sed on love, forgiveness and compassion, I should point out that no "Bible thumping" would be necessary or appropriate for this issue, as Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is limited to the Old Testament, and would have no bearing on followers of Jesus, for whom all Old Testament sc<x>ripture is trumped by the New Testament.
To me having children is why you used to get married as a rule. I know people get married and never have children. <br />
I think that marriage is having another shot in the arm for showing how little it means. Two people can live together and be free to leave when they want to. <br />
With marriage there are all kinds of legal ties and complications. <br />
If the founders of our country knew what has become of their ideals maybe they would have thought that the trip they made was in vain after all.
al for it people deserve the lifestyle they choose im not just saying that cuase im gay
Separate but equal, is not equal... Where did I hear this before? Oh right, it's in the constitution. The only argument that I hear people say is that, well they have a right to marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else and that's the kind of thinking that the government viewed unconstitutional so many years ago. It's ridiculous, they should have the right to be wed.
Something's should never change, marriage definitely being one of them. It is such a basic part of our world even back to the founding of our own country. Changing now is not what the country needs. There are far more pressing problems!
I think we are Living in a New Generation and the World is Changing! I am Glad the Gay marriages are So Controversial... But I think its time for For gays to have same Rights as Straights. they are our neighbors, Family members and Friends. And being Gay has been around sense before Genesis. And I say if you Fight them You Cant win. because Love is the Strongest thing in our World. Even God so loved the world he Gave his only begotten son.<br />
My parents Divorced, and they were strong Christans and So there Marriage didnt work out. SO I say if your in a Gay marriage and are in Working Relation ship. so be it, more power to you!!
I am for gay marriage. we have been down this road of trying to make others feel inferior or somehow broken or less worthy throughout our history,<br />
'Indians yep we shafted them<br />
Women yep took em forever to drag the men out of bars, and finally get the vote, still a work in progress<br />
Blacks,any nationality, any religion now its the gays turn, I think African Americans are feeling pretty good about now we have a black president and no body is looking at them as the "destroyer" of the American way of life, As an AFrican American friend of mine said not so long ago, "hey Im happy to be black now. Must be hard to be gay now"<br />
My take is let gay people get married, then they can be as miserable in a relationship as straight people are after 7-10 years :)
So go marry a gay black guy and find out. It'd be 7 seconds actually.
WHat ignorance. Inter racial kids suffer all the time from the cruelty of children and many adults as well. Try learning to spell too unless interracila is a new form of marriage.
So, you're saying that because the road is difficult we should just give up? Man, I bet you're a great motivational speaker.
Not at all. I am simply pointing out down through the ages one group has tried to make another inferior or unworthy.
Not you, the other guy.
I don't see what's wrong with it. Just look at it this way. Straight people get married and divorced so often. SO why stop two people who love one another from getting married?
WHy do we have marriage at all. Vows of till death us do paret and yet about half split up, like a temporary contract. It's a bullshit ceremony to collect money and that's it. More often than not it destroys long term de facto relationships which were fine.
It's wrong- God says so, so if you disagree- take it up with him. His opinion is the only one that counts in the long run.
Why the need to be respectful? Why attribute respect to people who are poo punchers? They get **** on their dicks. What's respectful about that. It's filthy.
Except that his opinion actually doesn't matter according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Personally, I would never harm a gay person. I do not care what they do with their lives, it's their business. I do however feel that their behavior is abnormal (if they were like that since they were little) and immoral (if they simply chose to become gay later in life).
They should be allowed to marry.Also, to be recognized as a married couple by certain laws being changed regarding status and benefits.
I think that there are many many more important issues that need attention in the US. We need to get all our troops home, work on healthcare issues, fix our suffering economy. Why does it even matter anyways? You can leave everything you want to your partner in a will, you can adopt children. It's just not as important as other things going on. And if a person is reasonable they will realize if the US falls to **** but they can legalize gay marriage that's not really a deal. <br />
But I must also say I'm not against gay marriage. I'm from Boston and it's been legal here for years. And I also am the mother of 3 children. Any one of those kids could turn out to be gay. And they would be loved and accepted by both their parents reguardless. And if they were in love I would want them to be able to have the same rights as I have.