PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     the problem
       the problem with gay marriage..and how it can be solved

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
ggdollxox

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with gay marriage is simply that marriage IS a religious ceremony. When so called "closed minded/mainstream" Christians are opposed to bringing homosexuality into the church, it is because it would be corrupting the basic principle of family. So when the religious people that are opposed to gay marriage speak out, they are shot back at with claims that there must be a separation of church and state. However, this is extremely hypocritical, marriage is part of the church.

I support gay rights 100%, I understand that many people are predisposed to homosexuality (although this is a completely different issue). But when you bring marriage into it, i feel completely differently. I have thought about this from every angle, and can not see the logic in taking a sacred ceremony on behalf of God and twist it into a purpose that it was never meant to serve. Dating has not always existed, people used to simply marry for reasons that in this day and age we can not fathom. Love was rarely an issue. I'm not saying you shouldn't marry for love, but i AM saying that the PURPOSE of marriage is to start a family. This isn't the purpose of marriage, and if you say it is, you are only fooling yourself. The truth of it is is that no matter how anti-religious you are, you can not deny that marriage was started in the church. Gay marriage would only be making a MOCKERY of marriage.

A family can NOT be produced within a same sex couple. The forefathers did not imagine gay marriage. There is very very concrete evidence that they saw slavery ending and women's lib beginning. Gay marriage, however...I don't believe would have crossed their mind.

The solution? You separate marriage from state. If you want to make things equal, this is the only solution. You can not force a country to accept homosexuals into a ceremony intended by God to unite a man and a woman. So you must take marriage out of the country's system. Civil union between a man and a man, civil union between a woman and a man.

I could go on longer, but that's the jist of what i wanted to say. Tell me what you think.



-------
"Reminding you to eat your cereal with a fork and do your homework in the dark."
~cArRiE~
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 02:50 AM on July 31, 2004 | IP
sailonsilvergirl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, should I, as a non Christian, non-denominational, NON-BELIEVER, not be allowed to marry?

A church can say they won't let me be married there (i wouldn't get married in a church) and a pastor could say they won't marry me (i would be married by a minister of the secular humanist "church"...i am an ordained minister myself)

I can still get married, God fearing or not.  Marriage doesn't HAVE to be a religious ceremony, it just typically is.  Marriage by clergy that are affiliated with "churches" such as secular humanism are increasing.  We don't have to have religious ceremonies.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 6:48 PM on August 9, 2004 | IP
JustineCredible

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ggdollxx:

Religious marriages are the relm of the church. No one is arguing that at all.
What is being argued is the legal form of recognition known as CIVIL MARRIAGE. Which heterosexuals have complete and total recognition, as well as transportability from EVERY state as well as recognition by the federal government.

The real issue isn't about religious marriage at all.
I and most of the entire GLBT Community all agree that each church is and will remain to have complete authority over it's choice to marry or not to marry whomever it chooses.

What is being fought for is legal recognition, benefits, rights and protections being exended to homosexual couples.

Over 1,100 benefits, rights, protections and liberties are denied LEGALLY through DOMA and the new HR 3313, Protection of Marriage Act, which passed the in Congress by an overwhelming majority.

My concern is what in all reality is marriage being protected or defended against?
Britney Spears and her 86hr marriage? Divorce on any level? Infidelity? Murder?
No.
Not at all.

Insted those titles are false. They are not protecting or defending legal marriage at all. What they are doing is DENYING marriage to one specific group of people.

Legal marriage is NOT religious.
It is NOT the sole property of any church.

Atheists and Agnostics alike are NOT barred from marrying as long as it's to someone of the opposite gender.
Theives, murderers and child molesters are not Barred from being legally wed to someone of the opposite gender.

Yet, tax paying, law abiding homosexual couples are.
Gay couples who are raising children. Who have been together longer than many heterosexual counterparts are being denied Social Security, Insurance, Estates, and Berievement benefits, which are granted to Heterosexual couples without question.

This is the INEQUALITY which is being fought to correct.



-------
"All those who believe in physcokenetics ~ Raise My Hand!"
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:26 PM on August 10, 2004 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ggdollxox at 02:50 AM on July 31, 2004 :

A family can NOT be produced within a same sex couple. The forefathers did not imagine gay marriage. There is very very concrete evidence that they saw slavery ending and women's lib beginning. Gay marriage, however...I don't believe would have crossed their mind.

The solution? You separate marriage from state. If you want to make things equal, this is the only solution. You can not force a country to accept homosexuals into a ceremony intended by God to unite a man and a woman. So you must take marriage out of the country's system. Civil union between a man and a man, civil union between a woman and a man.

I could go on longer, but that's the jist of what i wanted to say. Tell me what you think.





The problem with this argument is that marriage predates judism and christianity.   So it wasn't started by god.  It was a pagan ritual adopted but the jews to settle land disputes and marriages were arranged.  They were not based on procreation or on love.  They were based on property.

So your argument is unfounded.



-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 12:54 AM on September 29, 2004 | IP
sthrnredneck18

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some believe the state defines a marriage, others a priest or rabbi.  If you define marriage through a religion then why can’t two same sex Buddhists be allowed to marry?  In their religion sometimes it is looked upon with satisfaction when two people of the same sex are married.  In this country you cannot deny someone the right to practice their religion freely.  So why would you ban something they believe in?  If you define religion through the state then why are two people denied the right to marry based on sexual orientation?  Some people say that a marriage is for procreation.  Then why are infertile couples allowed to marry?  What about the elderly who fall in love and marry?  After menopause a woman cannot carry a child.  She, therefore, cannot procreate same with an impotent man and yet they are allowed to remarry.  Another argument for banning gay marriages is people say it is immoral.  In this country no one has the right to impose another religion on someone else.  The Bible, Torah, or Koran has no legal justice in American law.  If u want to define marriage thorugh religion then you have to think of all religions.  Not just the major religions.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:20 AM on October 28, 2004 | IP
sketerpot

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from sailonsilvergirl at 6:48 PM on August 9, 2004 :
So, should I, as a non Christian, non-denominational, NON-BELIEVER, not be allowed to marry?


Under the proposed civil-unions-for-all system, which I fully support, you would be able to get a civil union from the state which makes you, in the eyes of the law, as good as married. You can get a marriage ceremony seperately. You could even just decide to call yourself married. Some people might get angry at your "sloppy" language, but that won't make you any less married.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 9:06 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.