Gay Marriage; Right or Wrong

[Two Thumbs]

Do you think Gay Marriage is right or wrong?

Neither

It's marriage. It's neither right or wrong.

Marriage life on the other hand...

 

[R.D.]

First of all, we are talking about civil marriage law. The marriage license itself. The license comes first, and then the ceremony. Changing this law will in no way force churches to marry gay couples.

It will allow gay couples to marry. Period and obtain all the rights and priveleges that come with the license.

This is about the license first, not the ceremony.

Gays and lesbians have already been married in church ceremonies and private gatherings. What they haven't been, is legal.

The entire church arguement is an emotional red herring.

It's really only about semantics. Love and commitment does not equal marriage, but that is what the question and the movement try to push Many gays and non religious also agree that marriage should remain as traditionally defined. Husband and wife, man and woman. That in no way takes away form the relationship of same sex couples. Civil Unions provide the same rights, just not the same name.

The secular case against same sex marriage

 

[Sky Dancer]

I am not asking you guys if I should get married I am just wondering if it is right or wrong. A lot of people say gay marriage is wrong, I on the other hand say Gay Marriage is perfectly natural. I do not see what the big deal is either. When I run for congress, one of my campaign promises is I will make gay marriage legal in North Carolina. Currently we have to travel to Virginia to get married because they support gay marriage, North Carolina doesn't.

No, fudge packers should not be allowed to get married.

It is sick, perverted, and abnormal, and goes against nature.


Personally, I doubt that you will ever become a member of congress.

Because you will have contracted AIDS due to your vile lifestyle.

And most likely won't be around to achieve your degenerate goals.

First of all, I'm not hearing that Ballentine is gay. He's just a supporter of marriage equality.

Two, it's entirely possible that given the right causes and conditions he may become a member of congress. (although, he needs to study up on state law, he should have known Virginia doesn't marry gays)

Three, AIDS is preventable for heterosexuals an homosexuals through the practice of safe sex.

Four, heterosexual 'fudge packers' already marry. Why shouldn't gays?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Actually, I'm all for it.

Why should a gay couple that breaks up get to walk away unscarred? They to should get to enjoy to purity of spite that comes from divorce.

 

[Sky Dancer]

First of all, we are talking about civil marriage law. The marriage license itself. The license comes first, and then the ceremony. Changing this law will in no way force churches to marry gay couples.

It will allow gay couples to marry. Period and obtain all the rights and priveleges that come with the license.

This is about the license first, not the ceremony.

Gays and lesbians have already been married in church ceremonies and private gatherings. What they haven't been, is legal.

The entire church arguement is an emotional red herring.

It's really only about semantics. Love and commitment does not equal marriage, but that is what the question and the movement try to push Many gays and non religious also agree that marriage should remain as traditionally defined. Husband and wife, man and woman. That in no way takes away form the relationship of same sex couples. Civil Unions provide the same rights, just not the same name.

The secular case against same sex marriage

This isn't about semantics. It's about civil rights. If civil unions provided the same rights as marriage licenses do I wouldn't have bothered to get one.

Check out the truth of these laws. We had domestic partnership in California and it really is marriage light when it comes to rights and priveleges, which is why gays and lesbians wanted to marry.

I really wouldn't care if the terms marriage and civil unions existed to define hetero and homosexual marriages respectively as long as they shared the exact same civil rights.

Currently, the only way to ensure equal rights and protections for same sex couples is to change the marriage law to include gays.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the state should NOT sanction nor recognize church marriages. If one wants a marriage to be legal they should have to have a civil ceremony.

So many people whine about separation of church and state but have no problem with the state vesting power in a priest. It's hypocritical

Marriage is a civil institution - that's why it is not mandatory to be done in a church etc..and still legal. All marriages must have a valid license given by the municipality.

The silly confusion that a religion must accept and preform gay union is pure propaganda.

I never said any religious group should have to perform or recognize gay marriage.

I don't give a shit what any religion recognizes because a religion is not supposed to have legal authority to sanction anything.

The state gives power to a religion when it recognizes a religious ceremony as a legally binding contract. Any and all contracts such as marriage need only be sanctioned by the state a church official should have no power to decree any contract as legal.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The divorce rates in this country are through the roof, I say let gay people get married. Its not all its cracked up to be.

Exactly. You're definitely NOT marriage material. I am. I love it.

 

[JWBooth]

Actually, I'm all for it.

Why should a gay couple that breaks up get to walk away unscarred? They to should get to enjoy to purity of spite that comes from divorce.

"I'm all for gay marriage. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as everyone else" Kinky Friedman

 

[Sky Dancer]

the state should NOT sanction nor recognize church marriages. If one wants a marriage to be legal they should have to have a civil ceremony.

So many people whine about separation of church and state but have no problem with the state vesting power in a priest. It's hypocritical

Marriage is a civil institution - that's why it is not mandatory to be done in a church etc..and still legal. All marriages must have a valid license given by the municipality.

The silly confusion that a religion must accept and preform gay union is pure propaganda.

I never said any religious group should have to perform or recognize gay marriage.

I don't give a shit what any religion recognizes because a religion is not supposed to have legal authority to sanction anything.

The state gives power to a religion when it recognizes a religious ceremony as a legally binding contract. Any and all contracts such as marriage need only be sanctioned by the state a church official should have no power to decree any contract as legal.

That's correct. Marriage is a binding legal contract that comes with (or without) a later religious ceremony.

The state doesn't give power to churches. The legal part comes first and the ceremony comes later.

I'm with you. I could care less whether some churches choose to not marry same sex couples.

Mine did, and I appreciate that. The ceremony and support of our spiritual community made the event special to us.

 

[del]

First of all, we are talking about civil marriage law. The marriage license itself. The license comes first, and then the ceremony. Changing this law will in no way force churches to marry gay couples.

It will allow gay couples to marry. Period and obtain all the rights and priveleges that come with the license.

This is about the license first, not the ceremony.

Gays and lesbians have already been married in church ceremonies and private gatherings. What they haven't been, is legal.

The entire church arguement is an emotional red herring.

It's really only about semantics. Love and commitment does not equal marriage, but that is what the question and the movement try to push Many gays and non religious also agree that marriage should remain as traditionally defined. Husband and wife, man and woman. That in no way takes away form the relationship of same sex couples. Civil Unions provide the same rights, just not the same name.

The secular case against same sex marriage

so it's the word that needs to be kept *sacred*?

that's stupidity on a scale rarely seen outside of a truthmatters post.

kudos

 

[rightwinger]

Marriage is a civil institution - that's why it is not mandatory to be done in a church etc..and still legal. All marriages must have a valid license given by the municipality.

The silly confusion that a religion must accept and preform gay union is pure propaganda.

Think about it from a real world perspective too, if a church doesn't want to marry gays, and the gov't forces them too, you think they're going to give a damn how well the ceremony is run or will the pastor care about doing his best work?

Churches in the South remained bigoted and refused to marry inter-racial couples. Once people realized that racial differences are only skin deep, those bigoted churches saw their membership drop.

I suppose homophobic churches will have a similar enlightenment once people realize love is love and to restrict it based on stupidity is a dead end street.

Churches only SANCTIFY a marriage. The state issues licenses to enter the contract of marriage.

It will happen, but it will happen slowly

People will realize.."I contributed to this church my whole life and now they refuse to allow my child to marry the person they love"

 

[Nosmo King]

First of all, we are talking about civil marriage law. The marriage license itself. The license comes first, and then the ceremony. Changing this law will in no way force churches to marry gay couples.

It will allow gay couples to marry. Period and obtain all the rights and priveleges that come with the license.

This is about the license first, not the ceremony.

Gays and lesbians have already been married in church ceremonies and private gatherings. What they haven't been, is legal.

The entire church arguement is an emotional red herring.

It's really only about semantics. Love and commitment does not equal marriage, but that is what the question and the movement try to push Many gays and non religious also agree that marriage should remain as traditionally defined. Husband and wife, man and woman. That in no way takes away form the relationship of same sex couples. Civil Unions provide the same rights, just not the same name.

The secular case against same sex marriage

so it's the word that needs to be kept *sacred*?

that's stupidity on a scale rarely seen outside of a truthmatters post.

kudos

What we are seeing is the last feeble attempt to rationalize "separate but equal'.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage is neither right nor wrong no matter who participates.

Marriage is a legal contract entered into by two consenting adults nothing more.

Well said.

The "sanctity" of marriage is long dead.

A better question would've been "is being gay right or wrong"? Even this my answer would've been neither, but it would've been an improvement.

So in other words I think gay marriage should be legal, but I don't think government should have a hand in any marriage. Leave that up to churches, insurance companies, etc.

It's not for you decide that the 'sanctity' of marriage is dead. It might be for you - and for many others.... but it isn't to many more.

Marriage, to me, is a religious commitment, nothing to do with the state or anyone else. I couldn't give a rats ass if the state wants to license gay to get 'married'.... as long as they don't force Churches to do likewise.

Churches have a complete perogative to marry whoever they want. Marriage equality is about civil law and civil rights.

Homophobic churches can keep their ceremonies as far I'm concerned. What gay or lesbian couple in their right mind would want to be a member of a homophobic church?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Marriage is a civil institution - that's why it is not mandatory to be done in a church etc..and still legal. All marriages must have a valid license given by the municipality.

The silly confusion that a religion must accept and preform gay union is pure propaganda.

I never said any religious group should have to perform or recognize gay marriage.

I don't give a shit what any religion recognizes because a religion is not supposed to have legal authority to sanction anything.

The state gives power to a religion when it recognizes a religious ceremony as a legally binding contract. Any and all contracts such as marriage need only be sanctioned by the state a church official should have no power to decree any contract as legal.

That's correct. Marriage is a binding legal contract that comes with (or without) a later religious ceremony.

The state doesn't give power to churches. The legal part comes first and the ceremony comes later.

I'm with you. I could care less whether some churches choose to not marry same sex couples.

Mine did, and I appreciate that. The ceremony and support of our spiritual community made the event special to us.

A marriage license is not the contract. The contract is recognized when the one performing the ceremony says, "By the power vested in my by the state of......."

Therefore all marriages should require a civil ceremony to be legal or change the laws to say a marriage license is the legal contract. Without said civil ceremony a marriage is nothing more than a religious rite.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I never said any religious group should have to perform or recognize gay marriage.

I don't give a shit what any religion recognizes because a religion is not supposed to have legal authority to sanction anything.

The state gives power to a religion when it recognizes a religious ceremony as a legally binding contract. Any and all contracts such as marriage need only be sanctioned by the state a church official should have no power to decree any contract as legal.

That's correct. Marriage is a binding legal contract that comes with (or without) a later religious ceremony.

The state doesn't give power to churches. The legal part comes first and the ceremony comes later.

I'm with you. I could care less whether some churches choose to not marry same sex couples.

Mine did, and I appreciate that. The ceremony and support of our spiritual community made the event special to us.

A marriage license is not the contract. The contract is recognized when the one performing the ceremony says, "By the power vested in my by the state of......."

Therefore all marriages should require a civil ceremony to be legal or change the laws to say a marriage license is the legal contract. Without said civil ceremony a marriage is nothing more than a religious rite.

Nonsense. You apply for the license, you pay the fee, you sign it, witnesses sign it, you're married. The ceremony is window dressing.

My Buddhist Lama and another member of the community who were present signed ours.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's correct. Marriage is a binding legal contract that comes with (or without) a later religious ceremony.

The state doesn't give power to churches. The legal part comes first and the ceremony comes later.

I'm with you. I could care less whether some churches choose to not marry same sex couples.

Mine did, and I appreciate that. The ceremony and support of our spiritual community made the event special to us.

A marriage license is not the contract. The contract is recognized when the one performing the ceremony says, "By the power vested in my by the state of......."

Therefore all marriages should require a civil ceremony to be legal or change the laws to say a marriage license is the legal contract. Without said civil ceremony a marriage is nothing more than a religious rite.

Nonsense. You apply for the license, you pay the fee, you're married. The ceremony is window dressing.

Not in CT

A marriage license is only good for 65 days. One must have a civil ceremony or a civilly sanctioned ceremony within that time to make the contract legal.

DPH: State Office of Vital Records - Marriage License and Certificate

If you are planning to marry, you and your spouse-to-be must appear in person at a local vital records office to apply for a marriage license. The marriage license is issued to ensure that you and your spouse-to-be are eligible to be married. [You must apply for your marriage license at the vital records office of the town where the marriage is to take place.

You will need to complete the marriage license application, provide identification and make a sworn statement that the information that you provide is true. You no longer need to have a blood test to obtain a marriage license in Connecticut.

Once the marriage ceremony takes place, the marriage officiator will submit the license to the registrar of vital records of the town where the marriage took place. The registrar will then register the license and place it on file for permanent record. Once registered, the marriage license becomes a vital record and is referred to as a marriage certificate.

The marriage license is not recognized as a certificate of marriage (which is the legal document) until after a ceremony.

 

[Sky Dancer]

A marriage license is not the contract. The contract is recognized when the one performing the ceremony says, "By the power vested in my by the state of......."

Therefore all marriages should require a civil ceremony to be legal or change the laws to say a marriage license is the legal contract. Without said civil ceremony a marriage is nothing more than a religious rite.

Nonsense. You apply for the license, you pay the fee, you're married. The ceremony is window dressing.

Not in CT

A marriage license is only good for 65 days. One must have a civil ceremony or a civilly sanctioned ceremony within that time to make the contract legal.

DPH: State Office of Vital Records - Marriage License and Certificate

If you are planning to marry, you and your spouse-to-be must appear in person at a local vital records office to apply for a marriage license. The marriage license is issued to ensure that you and your spouse-to-be are eligible to be married. [You must apply for your marriage license at the vital records office of the town where the marriage is to take place.

You will need to complete the marriage license application, provide identification and make a sworn statement that the information that you provide is true. You no longer need to have a blood test to obtain a marriage license in Connecticut.

Once the marriage ceremony takes place, the marriage officiator will submit the license to the registrar of vital records of the town where the marriage took place. The registrar will then register the license and place it on file for permanent record. Once registered, the marriage license becomes a vital record and is referred to as a marriage certificate.

The marriage license is not recognized as a certificate of marriage (which is the legal document) until after a ceremony.

Are you saying that the state of Connecticut requires a religious ceremony before a marriage is considered legal? Are civil ceremonies performed by a Justice acceptable?

I was married to a man in the state of Oregon. We married at home, with a lay minister, and a witness. The minister and witness signed the license.

 

[High_Gravity]

The divorce rates in this country are through the roof, I say let gay people get married. Its not all its cracked up to be.

Exactly. You're definitely NOT marriage material. I am. I love it.

LOL this is hardly just about me, have you checked the divorce rates in this country? they are through the roof, so obviously I am not alone in this category.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The divorce rates in this country are through the roof, I say let gay people get married. Its not all its cracked up to be.

Exactly. You're definitely NOT marriage material. I am. I love it.

LOL this is hardly just about me, have you checked the divorce rates in this country? they are through the roof, so obviously I am not alone in this category.

You should definitely NOT marry. Me, I'm the marrying kind. Not everyone SHOULD marry. It can be a sign of wisdom to know you're not cut out for it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Exactly. You're definitely NOT marriage material. I am. I love it.

LOL this is hardly just about me, have you checked the divorce rates in this country? they are through the roof, so obviously I am not alone in this category.

You should definitely NOT marry. Me, I'm the marrying kind.

LOL why should I definently not marry? because you disagreed with a few of my posts and now I'm this villain?