Gay Rights

This interpretation of marriage depends on your jurisdiction - in Australia marriage is no longer considered religious and instead a civil institution - religious perspectives don't have any relevance on a person's right to be married. I personally agree with this stance - when the institution of marriage carries with it legal benefits for those who qualify, who's to say who can and can't qualify simply based on your personal views?

Marriage as a religious institution is an antiquated concept in my mind, and the continued support to keep it defined as such only hampers further attempts at full equality for everyone. Why should there be a 'next best option' for 2 people in love? Just let them get married.

If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, that's a different issue, but the term marriage needs to divorce itself (see what I did there?) from it's religious connotations.

 

Your post is not 100% understandable but if I'm not mistaken you just claimed you had spoken the truth in a 100% OPINIONATED topic. Truth=fact=hard subject. You said the truth AS YOU SAW IT=opinionated=soft subject. 2+2=4 is a fact, dogs are better than cats is an opinion.

 

Except cats are better than dogs so your opinion is wrong and mine is the truth

As for this, I believe Mjr already responded in the way I would have, but I just wanted to say that no, marriage is not dictated by religion, otherwise what would you do if you were not a religious person (ex. I'm spiritual, but not religious persay)?

Also I'd like to add that here in Canada same-sex marriage has been legalized for 10 years country-wide, and for longer in certain countries. It's really a non-issue, the US is just behind he times

 

Yeah, honestly I couldn't care less about whether someone is gay or not unless they were trying to court me... I really hate that everyone makes such a big deal out of such a small issue. It's like "Damn let's give these people their rights and move on already!" But yes, I will maintain that marriage is a religious thing, but it's true that most priests won't care if you're religious or not.

 

The thing is that there's over 1,000 (1,138 to be exact) federal benefits offered by the U.S. government for married couples. If marriage was only a "religious thing", then that would mean all married couples would not be given rights such as social security, joint taxes, immigration benefits, employee benefits, health care coverage, adoption/child custody rights, etc.

It's much too late to keep marriage as solely a religious institution. It's forever intertwined with our government, and we must learn to structure marriage in our government as a civil union– not as a religious rite.

Now, this doesn't mean that marriage is redundant in a religious setting. Churches and other religious institutions regulate their marriages in a way that is entirely unaffected by marriage laws regulated by the government. Examples of such separate laws: a rabbi does not have to conduct a marriage between a Jew and non-Jew, the Catholic church will not recognize a divorce or second marriage, the Mormon church will recognize polyamorous marriages in the state of Utah, and many more. It's true that marriage started out as a religious rite, but today's society no longer requires a religious basis for marriage. The government, however, does not oblige by these laws! You can get a divorce, but you can't be in a polyamorous marriage. There's many religions in the United States, and making our civil marriage laws based on religion is not only unconstitutional; it will damage the partnerships of couples that wish to seek the same federal benefits of marriage.

If you're in a heterosexual marriage and were stripped of all these federal benefits, then how would you feel?

 

Oh my god how long is this thread going to be alive?

--- Double Post Merged, May 20, 2015, Original Post Date: May 20, 2015 ---

I made this over a year ago xD

 

People just really like talking about why and why not two dudes should be allowed to ******** and be or not be presecuted for it.

 

I personally (as a religious person) believe gay marriage should not be allowed because it is defying our role in nature god put us in to reproduce and contribute to society by expanding the population. There are 2 genders for a reason.

 

Should we just lynch the plenty of heterosexual couples that can't have children then, or not let them marry eachother, then? What about (again I ask) transgenderism? What if someone who is biologically female is a man, or vice versa?

More importantly, does it really affect you at all that these loving people want to marry eachother to get rights and freedoms that have been available to heterosexual couples literally for centuries?

 

Incorrect. Regardless of who performs the ceremony, be it a Priest or Judge, is a civil affair. The Priest in itself doesn't marry you, he just acts as an officiant, in much the same way a Judge would. It's the city clerk's office that actually marries you, or rather the act of purchasing the Marriage Certificate, filling it out, and returning it marries you.

Aside from that, the only quantifiable benefits marriage brings is civil related, such as insurance, debt, taxes and fines.

I mean this argument in itself is silly, we should not be arguing over the definition of "Marriage", we should embrace the definition of "Civil Union", because where this all counts is in matters of civil affairs. This is the basic reason they are fighting for marriage, not solely just to be recognized, but to gain all the benefits a normal married couple gain. This is also the main reason people are arguing against it, under the swallow guise of religious conservatism. They are actually just greedy.

 

You just restated my arguments except for one thing: it should be up to the church on whether its called marriage. Other than that I agree with you completely

Okay I think I'm being misunderstood here so I'll say this as bluntly as I can. I want gay people to have all the rights of a married couple. My only catchpoint is on whether it is actual marriage as the church accepts it.

--- Double Post Merged, May 21, 2015, Original Post Date: May 21, 2015 ---

Woah there buddy I think 7,000,000,000 people is enough.

--- Double Post Merged, May 21, 2015 ---

Besides, I personally don't believe in God and therefore don't believe that we were 'put here' for a reason. I'm not hating on the idea of God, but I do believe I have found the source of this argument.

 

Yup It depends on what you believe our purpose is on Earth. It's different for everyone thus leading to difference of opinions.

 

2 genders?
2 GENDERS????
BUDDY YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER THING COMING IF YOU THINK THERE ARE ONLY 2 GENDERS

 

More importantly, I want someone who is on the religious side of things to respond to my question about transsexualism (basically, as Tim put it, anything other than cisgender)

 

ILY! <3 <3

 

Yes this is very wise. I disagree with a hell of a lot of stuff, but I accept that it's there, and I keep my opinions to myself, more because I don't want to get into arguments than I want to avoid hurting other people's feelings. Jeez people, grow up. You can't run to your mommy every time someone says something that contradicts your beliefs.

--- Double Post Merged, May 22, 2015, Original Post Date: May 22, 2015 ---

I have a friend. He is all but a Nazi. Literally, he identifies himself as a neofascist. I disagree with his political views 100%, but as an American, I recognize other's right to their own opinions, and I respect him for not attempting to force his opinions on others. We don't talk about politics much, and it's ok, but if we were to bring that subject up, we really would just agree to disagree, without having to accept the other's ideas.

 

I can't quite pinpoint whether or not you're using this analogy to target the people that defend gay rights or are gay... If it's the latter, then being gay isn't an choice, so you have no right to make an opinion of them. If I was born with cancer, and I had no way around it, would you come up to me and kick my wheelchair out from under me and protest about me having too many rights in the hospital, and that I was taking up too much hospital space?

 

Yeah, I didn't mean to infer you thought anything but that. It just said as an addition, the argument we're having in this society is stupid, and misguided, and it's an argument of lies, really.

 

The way the government is headed, cows will have the right to vote by 2020.