Are the bans on gay marriage religious?

For the life of me I do not understand the fight about gay marriage

Marriage is a civil right. (and responsibility) The churches have no authority to marry anyone save that authority vested in them by the state". The churches need not perform or recognize any marriage whatsoever. The Catholics certainly have many requirements in meeting their desires which have no validity in law. That is their right but they may not foist their preferences on us all.

The bias against gay marriage is purely religious in nature as is the (for lack of a better word) hatred of gays. Allowing gays to marry in no way diminishes, or elevates, my marriage. This is a total non issue in the sense of it being detrimental to straights. It means a lot in the legal and economic sense to those who cannot marry

That being said it will be the civil rights issue of this century. Ever so slowly the churches are losing their grip as the general population begins to see the bigotry of it all.

Can't happen too soon.
 
The bias against gay marriage is purely political in nature, nnot religious. Read what others in here are saying regarding the states role in marriage. It is the politicians that have made this an issue by usurping marriage as a legal matter instead of a religious one.

If the state was only there to uphold individual rights based on contractual agreements, this issue would be left strictly to the churches that marry folks in the religious fashion. But the government loves to have this carrot dangling for everyonne to fuss over. It allows many other intrusions on peoples lives and relationships, while fostering a divide and conquer status of the issue.
 
The bias against gay marriage is purely political in nature, nnot religious.

I disagree, one of the primary biases against homosexuals (and by extension) Same-sex Civil Marriage is based on religion and it's condemnation of homosexual relationships as - as the Bible puts it - an "abomination".


It is the politicians that have made this an issue by usurping marriage as a legal matter instead of a religious one.

The funny thing is that no one really pissed-and-moaned about the legal aspects of Civil Marriage for hundreds of years. People were just fine with politicians making "marriage" a function of Civil Law - it was only recently (with the last two decades) that people complain about politicians and marriage once homosexuals started pursuing equal treatment under the law.

Suddenly "government involvement" is a bad thing. Funny how it was good and accepted until the homosexuals wanted it just like straight couples.



>>>>
 
The bias against gay marriage is purely political in nature, nnot religious. Read what others in here are saying regarding the states role in marriage. It is the politicians that have made this an issue by usurping marriage as a legal matter instead of a religious one.

If the state was only there to uphold individual rights based on contractual agreements, this issue would be left strictly to the churches that marry folks in the religious fashion. But the government loves to have this carrot dangling for everyonne to fuss over. It allows many other intrusions on peoples lives and relationships, while fostering a divide and conquer status of the issue.

The institution of marriage has been in existence for thousands of years and everyone knows exactly what it is. Let's define what exactly in the issue before us. How do we give the LGBT community the same legal rights as existing that marriage partners have?

Simple. The government proposes an amendment issuing Civil Unions giving the same rights to to the LGBT community so they can have the families and rights given to the rest of the population.

This protects the church from mandating them to perform marriages against the accepted doctrines at the same time giving the same rights to everyone in the nation.
 
"The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature."

Exactly!
If government stayed out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be an issue.

What have YOU done to get government out of the marriage business?

More than you.

I would assume so, since I don't think government should get out of the marriage business. But, please...go on. Tell us what you've done so far.
 
The bias against gay marriage is purely political in nature, nnot religious. Read what others in here are saying regarding the states role in marriage. It is the politicians that have made this an issue by usurping marriage as a legal matter instead of a religious one.

If the state was only there to uphold individual rights based on contractual agreements, this issue would be left strictly to the churches that marry folks in the religious fashion. But the government loves to have this carrot dangling for everyonne to fuss over. It allows many other intrusions on peoples lives and relationships, while fostering a divide and conquer status of the issue.

The institution of marriage has been in existence for thousands of years and everyone knows exactly what it is. Let's define what exactly in the issue before us. How do we give the LGBT community the same legal rights as existing that marriage partners have?

Simple. The government proposes an amendment issuing Civil Unions giving the same rights to to the LGBT community so they can have the families and rights given to the rest of the population.

This protects the church from mandating them to perform marriages against the accepted doctrines at the same time giving the same rights to everyone in the nation.

When has that ever, ever been a danger?
 
What have YOU done to get government out of the marriage business?

More than you.

I would assume so, since I don't think government should get out of the marriage business. But, please...go on. Tell us what you've done so far.

That's seems an honest answer, so I'll ask an honest question. What benefits do you attribute to government's involvement in the institute of marriage, with the follow up:

Could any of those benefits be provide for by markets and our court system/contract law?
 
More than you.

I would assume so, since I don't think government should get out of the marriage business. But, please...go on. Tell us what you've done so far.

That's seems an honest answer, so I'll ask an honest question. What benefits do you attribute to government's involvement in the institute of marriage, with the follow up:

Could any of those benefits be provide for by markets and our court system/contract law?

Our court system IS "the government".

Contract law is enforced by "the government".

What other "government involvement" in marriage are you talking about?
 
"The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature."

Exactly!
If government stayed out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be an issue.

What have YOU done to get government out of the marriage business?

More than you.

Did it ever dawn on you why the government was involved in marriage to begin with?

It's not like government involvment has been around as long as the institution of marriage has.

Government involvment evolved as our society changed. It became necessary for government to step in when certain legalities developed regarding divorce and death of spouses. Legalities regarding children as well. The financial aspects of marriage are plenty. There is no way government cannot be involved in marriage in today's society.
 
The bias against gay marriage is purely political in nature, nnot religious. Read what others in here are saying regarding the states role in marriage. It is the politicians that have made this an issue by usurping marriage as a legal matter instead of a religious one.

If the state was only there to uphold individual rights based on contractual agreements, this issue would be left strictly to the churches that marry folks in the religious fashion. But the government loves to have this carrot dangling for everyonne to fuss over. It allows many other intrusions on peoples lives and relationships, while fostering a divide and conquer status of the issue.

Marriage has always been a legal issue. It can be no other, unless you wish to abandon all the protecions it gives to both husband and wife and to the children.

If your "private" contract was violated who would you get to enforce it and/or impose penalties?

The state of course.
 

Forum List

Back
Top