Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm leaving this thread. I had no idea someone would get so upset over a couple medical studies. Later.
I posted this for serious discussion on this matter. Any more posts like this within in this thread will be deleted.
At the risk of commenting on the OP......this is all going to be off the cuff, I haven't researched it and I'm not particularly religious so I'm sure people will have plenty of scope to shred it, but WTF.
I hate the idea of gay marriage.
Marriage was around long before the constitution and is religious in nature. The church has certain laws, one of which is essentially that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.
If gay couples want the same rights under law as a heterosexual married couple then, as I understand it, they can have access to those rights within what (in Britain at least - I'm not certain if this is the case in the U.S.) is called a civil partnership.
If what they want is a Christian marriage in Church, tough shit. I don't mean to sound callous, but as an Anglican I am not allowed to take communion in a Roman Catholic church because I don't believe that wafers and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ. I believe it is symbolic, Catholics believe a transformation takes place. I'm not thrilled about it, but I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about being denied my "rights". It's a religious matter, and I have to live with that.
I have no problem with someone who choses to live in a gay relationship. I do have a problem with some of the loathsome comments that are often made about gays (Sunni's are a prime example).
But as far as a Christian marriage is concerned, no, I do not, can not, and will never think that it should be allowed.
I congratulate them on one more step forward for civil rights for ALL Americans. Hopefully Prop 8 will be overturned in CA.
I agree on a religious front. However, in the US, marriage is also a legal contract. Are we to tell a peson, because of his sexual orientation, that he or she may not enter into a legal contract with another person?
At the risk of commenting on the OP......this is all going to be off the cuff, I haven't researched it and I'm not particularly religious so I'm sure people will have plenty of scope to shred it, but WTF.
I hate the idea of gay marriage. Marriage was around long before the constitution and is religious in nature. The church has certain laws, one of which is essentially that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.
If gay couples want the same rights under law as a heterosexual married couple then, as I understand it, they can have access to those rights within what (in Britain at least - I'm not certain if this is the case in the U.S.) is called a civil partnership.
If what they want is a Christian marriage in Church, tough shit.
Hopefully not.
the solution to this issue is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely and have nothing to do with it, there should be no legal issues involved with marriage
it is a religious ceremony and as such is protected by the first amendment
the only thing the government should be part of is the legalities and they should call them all civil unions for everyone
and it shouldnt
Excellent idea. But the government taxes married couples more than it taxes individuals.
the solution to this issue is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely and have nothing to do with it, there should be no legal issues involved with marriage
it is a religious ceremony and as such is protected by the first amendment
the only thing the government should be part of is the legalities and they should call them all civil unions for everyone
that being said, you would still have the issue of some churches that already do perform same sex marriages
Marriage occurred between African, North American and South American tribes. Perhaps not the same ceremonies that you have today, but the traditions of modern marriage are just that - very modern. If you research history, evidence of same sex unions in ancient Greece or ancient Rome are abundantly available. In fact, the Roman Emperor Nero was the first Roman Emperor to marry another man. The idea of Christian marriage is only a very recent development if you consider human civilization about 10-15,000 years old - Christianity is only about 1800-1900 years old. Marriage was around long before christianity and you christians are not the originators of it. Neither is Judaism. And in America, we don't follow one bible. This is not a Christian nation. Everyone has the freedom of believing in whatever version of religion they want - and if they believe that their version of religion condones homosexual relationships and marriage, they are protected by their first amendment rights to practice their version of religion. Additionally, you can get married by a judge. AND you are not officially married according to the United States government until you receive a marriage liscense. So, according to the government, you could be an athiest and still get married. Kinda blows a big gaping wide hole in your "marriage according to religion" theory.
Additionally, tigerbob, do you follow every single law that the Church has put before you? Are you a devout Christian?
Do you never curse? Did you save your virginity before marriage? Dependent upon your denomination of Christianity, there could be several hundred laws that you're breaking every day. Yet I don't see you or your pastor/priest/reverand/spiritual leader bashing every single law that you break. Why are you so focused on this one "law" that really is open to interpretation.
I think it's a bit bigoted of you to focus on one law when there are literally hundreds of others that people, including yourself most likely, are breaking every day.
Civil unions are not recognized in all states. And civil unions are unconstitutional, because if you offer civil unions to homosexual couples, you should offer them to heterosexual couples as well. These are people who don't want the gigantic commitment of marriage, but do want to advance their relationship. They allow homo and heterosexual civil unions in Europe I believe.
That's not up to you, that's up to their Church or Temple. And please remember what I said above - you Anglicans aren't the only players on the field. Your opinion does not matter more than other religions do.
Why not? Who are you to tell people how to live their lives? How does it effect your marriage? Who the hell are you to tell people who live thousands of miles away from you what they can and cannot do?
Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can not think?
And I've seen no shortage of posts from you telling people why they are wrong, so get off your high fucking horse.
Good for them. Liberty for all, not just heterosexuals.
I posted this for serious discussion on this matter. Any more posts like this within in this thread will be deleted.
You know, xhead, you could substitute the word girl in your "medical fact" paste and it would probably be a true statement. Does that mean the real problem is men? Maybe we should outlaw them, what do you think?I'm leaving this thread. I had no idea someone would get so upset over a couple medical studies. Later.
I'm leaving this thread. I had no idea someone would get so upset over a couple medical studies. Later.
the solution to this issue is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely and have nothing to do with it, there should be no legal issues involved with marriage
it is a religious ceremony and as such is protected by the first amendment
the only thing the government should be part of is the legalities and they should call them all civil unions for everyone
that being said, you would still have the issue of some churches that already do perform same sex marriages
