Opinion On Same-Sex Marriage

[Katganistan]

I think it's a disgrace what marriage has become. However, this is hardly the fault of homosexuals as much as it is the fault of Henry the 8th. This particular battle was lost long ago and it opened the floodgates for the ludicrous conversations we have now. It's shameful.

Once again, since you ignore it:
RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON MARRIAGE.
CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON MARRIAGE.
MARRIAGE EXISTED PRE-CHRISTIANITY.
MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT.

In the US you can have a marriage without a religious ceremony and have it recognized as legal, but you canNOT have a religious marriage without the state-issued license and have it recognized as legal.

[Geneviev]

Here's a question for you. If being gay is intently wrong according to the Bible and its not a choice as psychologists have proven and we are all made in God's image why would God create someone who is condemned from the moment they are born? I'm a religious person too.

Homosexuality has not been proven to be 'not a choice ', not by psychology nor by biology.
It has no objective existence. It's a subjective disorder. There's no gene which influences homosexuality.
God didn't create homosexuality, and He wouldn't condemn his children to the degradation of it, since He is a just and loving God.
I can't imagine a religion which endorses homosexuality, by which I mean carnal love between two men as that between a man and woman. However, there are some Anglicans and Quakers who accept marriages between homoromantic asexual men and women.

Why would a just and loving God take someone who believes in him and believes that homosexuality is a sin and make that person homosexual? There's no way they would choose to do that to themselves and condemn themselves to suffering.

[Thermodolia]

Homosexuality has not been proven to be 'not a choice ', not by psychology nor by biology.
It has no objective existence. It's a subjective disorder. There's no gene which influences homosexuality.
God didn't create homosexuality, and He wouldn't condemn his children to the degradation of it, since He is a just and loving God.
I can't imagine a religion which endorses homosexuality, by which I mean carnal love between two men as that between a man and woman. However, there are some Anglicans and Quakers who accept marriages between homoromantic asexual men and women.

Why would a just and loving God take someone who believes in him and believes that homosexuality is a sin and make that person homosexual? There's no way they would choose to do that to themselves and condemn themselves to suffering.

At least the catholics believe that homosexuality exists but that it’s a cross that one must bear. Still silly I say but at least they do believe that homos are for realzy

[Kiu Ghesik]

I just love when people look at "just and merciful God" and assume that means that if they existed, God would eliminate human suffering altogether.

[State of Turelisa]

But what is this mechanism which you speak of? Arousal? Is there really no freedom of will between arousal, ideation and sexual act?

well no, we are not talking about lewd and livcious gays of the bath house era. Sexual arousal is only a part of it..

This is two people trying to make a lifelong commitment to each otherbefore their God an community in an act of blessed sacrament. In a time of declining religious investment by the masses why in gods name would you want to discourage that behavior.

HOMOSEXUAL PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
I am aroused. This person is arousing me. I want to get close to this person and stimulate my genitals upon him until my arousal reaches a peak and is satisfied.
HOMOROMANTIC PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
We are both attracted to each other's personalities. This strong attachment is a bond which we identify as Love. Our marriage is a token of this Love.

The moral problem, for me, is the confusion or the two, in an ideal which is termed 'homosexual marriage.

[Geneviev]

Why would a just and loving God take someone who believes in him and believes that homosexuality is a sin and make that person homosexual? There's no way they would choose to do that to themselves and condemn themselves to suffering.

At least the catholics believe that homosexuality exists but that it’s a cross that one must bear. Still silly I say but at least they do believe that homos are for realzy

It makes sense, at least. Calling it a choice is ridiculous.

[Ethel mermania]

I just love when people look at "just and merciful God" and assume that means that if they existed, God would eliminate human suffering altogether.

No, but we should be able to reasonably expect him not to put stumbling blocks on the path to salvation.

[Thermodolia]

well no, we are not talking about lewd and livcious gays of the bath house era. Sexual arousal is only a part of it..

This is two people trying to make a lifelong commitment to each otherbefore their God an community in an act of blessed sacrament. In a time of declining religious investment by the masses why in gods name would you want to discourage that behavior.

HOMOSEXUAL PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
I am aroused. This person is arousing me. I want to get close to this person and stimulate my genitals upon him until my arousal reaches a peak and is satisfied.
HOMOROMANTIC PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
We are both attracted to each other's personalities. This strong attachment is a bond which we identify as Love. Our marriage is a token of this Love.

The moral problem, for me, is the confusion or the two, in an ideal which is termed 'homosexual marriage.

Have you never loved someone or anything? Because you act as if humans are robots

[Novus America]

I mean I am more socially conservative than most on this thread probably, but umm yes?
I am in fact quite glad the government or tribe does not brutally mutilate me for disagreeing on religion.

So am I. But I'm not glad that religious libel is no longer an offence which may be punished by a fine.

Disagree. Freedom of speech and religion means the ability to freely advocate and criticize religion.
But I think this is off topic.

[Ethel mermania]

well no, we are not talking about lewd and livcious gays of the bath house era. Sexual arousal is only a part of it..

This is two people trying to make a lifelong commitment to each otherbefore their God an community in an act of blessed sacrament. In a time of declining religious investment by the masses why in gods name would you want to discourage that behavior.

HOMOSEXUAL PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
I am aroused. This person is arousing me. I want to get close to this person and stimulate my genitals upon him until my arousal reaches a peak and is satisfied.
HOMOROMANTIC PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
We are both attracted to each other's personalities. This strong attachment is a bond which we identify as Love. Our marriage is a token of this Love.

The moral problem, for me, is the confusion or the two, in an ideal which is termed 'homosexual marriage.

Why? both states you just described exist in a heterosexual marriage. There is always a physical and an emotional bond. It is that combination that makes a successful marriage.

[Kiu Ghesik]

I just love when people look at "just and merciful God" and assume that means that if they existed, God would eliminate human suffering altogether.

No, but we should be able to reasonably expect him not to put stumbling blocks on the path to salvation.

I guess an argument can be made for that. Though from what I understand of Christian morality specifically (I guess that's what's being discussed here), the only sin that'll get you sent down to the Nether pre 1.17 update the bad place permanently is denying God's divinity. All else can be forgiven as long as you accept Christ.

[The New California Republic]

However, there are some Anglicans and Quakers who accept marriages between homoromantic asexual men and women.

The Quakers in the UK have no requirement for the persons involved in same-sex marriage be asexual. They don't even require them to be abstinent. They can be sexually active and still have a Quaker wedding.

[Katganistan]

Because it would undermine the power and authority of the Church.

Well here is the irony. The more a church gets involved in the legal process, the less religious and the more corrupt and political the church gets. By becoming one with the government the church just becomes a government, with all the problems and contradictions that produces.

Does the church want religious purity? Or power? Because ironically it cannot have both. The two are mutually exclusive.

Obviously the churches of the early modern period were often violent, oppressive and corrupt. Because they could not keep both power and their claims to be more interested in spiritual development rather than worldly wealth and power.

Hence we decided to separate the two. As it fixed a lot of problems.

The Catholic Church IS a government. Hence Vatican City being a country unto itself.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Well here is the irony. The more a church gets involved in the legal process, the less religious and the more corrupt and political the church gets. By becoming one with the government the church just becomes a government, with all the problems and contradictions that produces.

Does the church want religious purity? Or power? Because ironically it cannot have both. The two are mutually exclusive.

Obviously the churches of the early modern period were often violent, oppressive and corrupt. Because they could not keep both power and their claims to be more interested in spiritual development rather than worldly wealth and power.

Hence we decided to separate the two. As it fixed a lot of problems.

The Catholic Church IS a government. Hence Vatican City being a country unto itself.

It's not half bad at its job, either.

[Novus America]

Well here is the irony. The more a church gets involved in the legal process, the less religious and the more corrupt and political the church gets. By becoming one with the government the church just becomes a government, with all the problems and contradictions that produces.

Does the church want religious purity? Or power? Because ironically it cannot have both. The two are mutually exclusive.

Obviously the churches of the early modern period were often violent, oppressive and corrupt. Because they could not keep both power and their claims to be more interested in spiritual development rather than worldly wealth and power.

Hence we decided to separate the two. As it fixed a lot of problems.

The Catholic Church IS a government. Hence Vatican City being a country unto itself.

I mean technically yes, which actually became problematic when the Papal States were big enough. But it although technically is a government controls a very tiny area with no native born population, which great limits the difficulty.
But I think this has wandered far astray, not a mod but we are barely talking about gay marriage, and have basically made this the CDT.

[Katganistan]

I wouldn't call it a mockery but I do get where he is coming from. Marriage is indeed an institution that lost most if not all of its purpose for being and now exists basically as a way to get tax cuts and other benefits.

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

Marriage licenses basically governs who can make medical decisions for the spouses absent a living will, how the couple's property will be split in case of divorce absent a prenup, who will care for the kids if one spouse dies before the other, and the disposition of the property in case of death.

So there are plenty of legal reasons to get the marriage license.

If civil marriage predates Christianity, and thus was different than Christian Marriage how does civil marriage harm or cheapen Christian Marriage? Why not have them be separate things?

Ironically it is trying to combine the two that “cheapens” one or the other, but trying to combine things with different purposes.

Maybe he's complaining about Christians wedding same sex couples? I know whenever I get married, I'd like my pastor to be the officiant.

Some sects have no problem with officiating for same sex couples.

This is why I advocate for splitting the governmental from the religious when it comes to marriage. Basically anyone could get “married” in a church or any other religious institution but they’d have to go to the court to make it official in the eyes of the government.

So while a religion might say that two people are married, if they don’t go to the courthouse the government views them as single

In the US this is very nearly how it is: you need to apply for a civil marriage license whether you have a religious ceremony or not for it to be legally recognized.

[Salandriagado]

Marriage predated Christianity by thousands of years, I'm not sure why the religious feel the need to claim it as though it was some divinely inspired union.

Before Christianity, Man was in the fallen, irredeemable state of total depravity, and anything of which he conceived, including marital union, was invalid because it was without God's sanction.

If this were true, we'd see a notable improvement in average behaviour with the spread of Christianity. We see nothing of the sort.

[Kernen]

This is why I advocate for splitting the governmental from the religious when it comes to marriage. Basically anyone could get “married” in a church or any other religious institution but they’d have to go to the court to make it official in the eyes of the government.

So while a religion might say that two people are married, if they don’t go to the courthouse the government views them as single

In the US this is very nearly how it is: you need to apply for a civil marriage license whether you have a religious ceremony or not for it to be legally recognized.

Its ideal. Not all married couples want a church involved.

Our officiant was a gay man. Far more pleasant a wedding than one with a religious figure officiating for us.

[Salandriagado]

Okay but WHY just a man and a woman? What's the reason for it?

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus.

Humans are not designed in any way.

A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't.

So why is it so damned good at it?

Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman as intended, and male ejaculation is intended to result in the creation of life, not spilled in vain during masturbation or any other sexual act which isn't coitus.

So why does such a miserably tiny percentage of male ejaculation result in such, even doing everything "properly", by your silly standards?

[Neutraligon]

This is why I advocate for splitting the governmental from the religious when it comes to marriage. Basically anyone could get “married” in a church or any other religious institution but they’d have to go to the court to make it official in the eyes of the government.

So while a religion might say that two people are married, if they don’t go to the courthouse the government views them as single

In the US this is very nearly how it is: you need to apply for a civil marriage license whether you have a religious ceremony or not for it to be legally recognized.

There are churches who have weddings that are not recognized by the state, namely those churches that are pro-polygamy. Personally of the opinion that religious leaders should not be able to sign on the line and instead it should only be the state officiating it, thus fully separating marriage from the church. The church can then have whatever union they wish.

[Salandriagado]

only to you heretics, the jewish faith also says sex is to strengthen the bonds of marriage.

The Son of God was crucified by Jews like a common criminal, and you, the person who has taken upon himself to speak for all other Jews, have the temerity to call us Christians heretic.

If you're going to base your arguments on inane bollocks like this, can you at least try to be vaguely historically accurate?

[Katganistan]

antisemitism isn't the topic of thread.

And there's no Antisemitism in the thread, either.

No, of course not, not when you imply that Jews are degenerate because their faith predates Christianity, and then you go straight to "Zionists kill people in the Middle East".

No antisemitism there at ALL.

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

Because other than being busybodies using whatever flavor of holy text or personal squeamishness they adhere to -- there IS no valid argument against it.

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

In your opinion. But frankly, in a secular nation AS WE HAVE IN THE US, with secular laws about marriage, banging on about how it's an affront to your faith is irrelevant.

[San Lumen]

well no, we are not talking about lewd and livcious gays of the bath house era. Sexual arousal is only a part of it..

This is two people trying to make a lifelong commitment to each otherbefore their God an community in an act of blessed sacrament. In a time of declining religious investment by the masses why in gods name would you want to discourage that behavior.

HOMOSEXUAL PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
I am aroused. This person is arousing me. I want to get close to this person and stimulate my genitals upon him until my arousal reaches a peak and is satisfied.
HOMOROMANTIC PATTERNS OF THOUGHT
We are both attracted to each other's personalities. This strong attachment is a bond which we identify as Love. Our marriage is a token of this Love.

The moral problem, for me, is the confusion or the two, in an ideal which is termed 'homosexual marriage.

why does homosexuality exist in nature if its so inherently wrong? its well documented. or is it only in humans its morally wrong?

[Salandriagado]

In the US this is very nearly how it is: you need to apply for a civil marriage license whether you have a religious ceremony or not for it to be legally recognized.

Its ideal. Not all married couples want a church involved.

Our officiant was a gay man. Far more pleasant a wedding than one with a religious figure officiating for us.

My parents met their officiant in a bar. The total cost of the wedding (including the literal castle to hold it in) was buying his drinks for the night. Can you think of a better system?

[Geneviev]

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

In your opinion. But frankly, in a secular nation AS WE HAVE, with secular laws about marriage, banging on about how it's an affront to your faith is irrelevant.

Particularly when your faith doesn't really oppose it at all.