Opinion On Same-Sex Marriage

[Katganistan]

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.

Of course he does. Judaism is the root from which Christianity sprung.
Jesus was a rabbi, ffs.

But still NOT THE TOPIC.

[Kernen]

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?

An exchange of services based on alcohol as a medium is superior to any based on religion.

[Novus America]

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.

This. Civil marriage is different than religious marriage. If your faith wants to not recognize gay marriage cool. And if it wants to recognize it cool. But the government should give equal legal protections regardless.

Someone of a different or no faith getting legal recognition for inheritance purposes does not harm you.

[Katganistan]

And you wonder why people get turned off of religion?

It's because of people like you.

"People only hate religion because religion exists"

Nope. People hate religion when religious fanatics talk about dismembering people. Or actually do it.

So, honestly, who am I going to support: two people of the same gender who want to be married, to be committed and devoted to each other and have and raise children together -- or people insisting that they are evil while espousing bodily harm to others?

Logic would say, the people expressing love and compassion rather than murder and mayhem.

[Novus America]

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.

Although I see the argument there, I think the current system is fine.
Really it is a non issue.

[Sundiata]

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.

That's untrue. Religious brothers and sisters often would take care of disabled people because of Catholicism. Prior to that, the Romans and Greeks would leave them to die.

A society is only as strong as its weakest members.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

>irredeemable state of total depravity
>ancient empires that were so influential they still massively influence the world today

Really makes ya think

[Ethel mermania]

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?

An exchange of services based on alcohol as a medium is superior to any based on religion.

Dionysus thinks he is chopper liver around here.

[Sundiata]

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.

I don't disagree with you regarding the way things are, I disagree with you regarding the way things should be.

[Katganistan]

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.

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

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.

I don't disagree with you regarding the way things are, I disagree with you regarding the way things should be.

Fortunately, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and the First Amendment gives people the right to worship as they please or NOT worship if they please, and there is an absolute prohibition against ANY religion being recognized as the official US religion.

So frankly, once again, your feelings about why a secular state should enshrine discrimination and inequality in its laws about marriage is irrelevant.

[Sundiata]

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.

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

[Kernen]

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.

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

I agree. The ideal system is the dual system, not one or the other.

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.

I don't disagree with you regarding the way things are, I disagree with you regarding the way things should be.

I never understand the religious refusal to leave nonbelievers to their own devices.

[Necroghastia]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

Why should it be limited like that? Do you not realize that that limit does cause undue suffering?

[Jedi Council]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

And why do you feel the need to push your values onto others?

[Neutraligon]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

Guess what, by limiting marriage to a man and a woman, you are inflicting undue suffering.

[Sundiata]

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.

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

I don't disagree with you regarding the way things are, I disagree with you regarding the way things should be.

Fortunately, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and the First Amendment gives people the right to worship as they please or NOT worship if they please, and there is an absolute prohibition against ANY religion being recognized as the official US religion.

So frankly, once again, your feelings about why a secular state should enshrine discrimination and inequality in its laws about marriage is irrelevant.

The state and church serve different functions but they should absolutely not be separate.

Bishops shouldn't be governors, but each role in government and the church should certainly be distinguished. The separation of church and state is unacceptable, the two should be integrated.

[Punished UMN]

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

And why do you feel the need to push your values onto others?

Why would one not feel the need to push their value system on others? If you don't, people will adopt other value systems which might be detrimental to your own interests.

[Punished UMN]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.

Some values are irreconcilable to the degree that they contract. The legal status of marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that edict should not incur any undue suffering on people of any sex.

There's really no values that are harmed by allowing people of the same sex to marry.

[Necroghastia]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.


Fortunately, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and the First Amendment gives people the right to worship as they please or NOT worship if they please, and there is an absolute prohibition against ANY religion being recognized as the official US religion.

So frankly, once again, your feelings about why a secular state should enshrine discrimination and inequality in its laws about marriage is irrelevant.

The state and church serve different functions but they should absolutely not be separate.

Bishops shouldn't be governors, but each role in government and the church should certainly be distinguished. The separation of church and state is unacceptable, the two should be integrated.

Why?

[Kernen]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.


Fortunately, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and the First Amendment gives people the right to worship as they please or NOT worship if they please, and there is an absolute prohibition against ANY religion being recognized as the official US religion.

So frankly, once again, your feelings about why a secular state should enshrine discrimination and inequality in its laws about marriage is irrelevant.

The state and church serve different functions but they should absolutely not be separate.

Bishops shouldn't be governors, but each role in government and the church should certainly be distinguished. The separation of church and state is unacceptable, the two should be integrated.

We opening those roles up to all religions, or does yours get special treatment?

[Novus America]

And why do you feel the need to push your values onto others?

Why would one not feel the need to push their value system on others? If you don't, people will adopt other value systems which might be detrimental to your own interests.

This. Opposing separation of church and state backfires massively if the people in power have a different religious opinion than you.

You can do you religious marriages however you want. But religious and civil marriages are different things.

[Neutraligon]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.


Fortunately, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and the First Amendment gives people the right to worship as they please or NOT worship if they please, and there is an absolute prohibition against ANY religion being recognized as the official US religion.

So frankly, once again, your feelings about why a secular state should enshrine discrimination and inequality in its laws about marriage is irrelevant.

The state and church serve different functions but they should absolutely not be separate.

Bishops shouldn't be governors, but each role in government and the church should certainly be distinguished. The separation of church and state is unacceptable, the two should be integrated.

No, with a fuck No, and a screw that added on. Secularism protects me from you and I have no desire for my country to be forced to follow laws of a religion that I strongly disagree with and a church that I not only disagree with but which I find to be morally repugnant. Secularism also protects you from other people because there may come a time when it isn't your religion that the government follows. I do not understand why so many religious do not realize this little fact.

[Punished UMN]

I'm glad that the ceremony you chose and the officiant you chose worked for you.
I have nothing against people having religious ceremonies; I have quite a bit against them declaring all marriages other than the ones they approve invalid even when the people spouting that nonsense are from the same religion I am from.


Fortunately, there is a separation of church and state in the US, and the First Amendment gives people the right to worship as they please or NOT worship if they please, and there is an absolute prohibition against ANY religion being recognized as the official US religion.

So frankly, once again, your feelings about why a secular state should enshrine discrimination and inequality in its laws about marriage is irrelevant.

The state and church serve different functions but they should absolutely not be separate.

Bishops shouldn't be governors, but each role in government and the church should certainly be distinguished. The separation of church and state is unacceptable, the two should be integrated.

The integration of the two inevitably means one will subvert the other.

[Jedi Council]

And why do you feel the need to push your values onto others?

Why would one not feel the need to push their value system on others? If you don't, people will adopt other value systems which might be detrimental to your own interests.

Is gay marriage detrimental to the interests of the religious?

[Cekoviu]

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't. 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.

There is no intent to sexual activity, especially among a species as evolved as we are. You can intend to procreate, and you can engage in intimacy without this intent. We are not even the only animals to do this. Moralizing the point is just being a prude.

humans are no more "evolved" than any other extant species. what are you smoking and where can i get some?

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't.

Well, someone hasn't read up on everything the prostate does...

the prostate is coincidentally a site of sexual pleasure, yep. what is your point. this is a garbage argument for gay sex being morally ok (i don't necessarily think it isn't, but you're making me want to side with turelisa just by virtue of how poorly you're making your case.)

Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman

So, what about gay couples where one person is cis and the other is pre- or non-op trans?

well, frist of all, "non-op trans" is made up; second of all, it's doubtful a pre-op + cis couple would want to engage in typical PiV sex due to dysphoria; third of all, a general rule can still be valid in weird exceptional cases like this (even if technical procreative sex could be performed it's still in violation of the spirit)

I agree.

Certain prudes dont.

Riddle me this. Why else would God care about what a man does with his penis, unless God was gay?

"why would god oppose murder unless god was a serial killer?!?!?!?"

This would have been religious libel once. You must be so glad to be living in a free society where you may freely blaspheme without penalty of having your tongue cut out and your ears cropped or at the least being fined.

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? Im a religious person too.

1) the bible doesn't say being gay is inherently wrong, it at MOST says gay male sex is wrong
2) psychologists haven't """"proven""" that, it's generally agreed, watch your language.
3) god gives people trials regularly by causing them to be born with birth defects etc, i don't see how that couldn't also potentially be the case for homosexuality.
4) i don't see where you're going with the "we are all made in God's image" because you didn't follow up on that part, but i have a feeling it would've been very wrong and stupid, so do not elaborate on that.