Gays and Gay Marriages

[cloverfdx]

I have been pondering this thread for a while now, wondering if i should post or not. I am quite shy and not one to speak my mind to often so sorry about my lack of imput.

IMO, nobody has the right to say who you can and can't marry, same gender or not. I just don't see HOW it's hurting anyone by "allowing" people of the same sex to marry, and I never will.

Very well said.
We would not be hurting anyone, you guys live your lives and we will live ours.

I don't have a problem with civil unions, but do not support gay marriages. I find the term marriage to be a church-related term, and I think it should stay that way. My views against homosexuality are religion driven and therefore cannot apply in a political setting.

And i find the term marriage, being when a couple is willing to commit their lives to one another, does that realy bother you that much?.

[PJ's Mom]

If they're going to live together, have sex, raise children and basically do everything a "regular" couple would do, then why not let them get married?

[DJFyrewolf36]

Having been personally affected by predjudice against gays, I think that whom you love shouldn't be a matter of public opinion. Love is a phenominion shared between two people and I think the world should butt out. However, I don't condone obnoxious public displays of affection, from anyone. I don't care if youre hetro or homosexual, keep it in your house!

We can argue the whole civil union/marage thing until we are all blue in the face. I don't think the terminology matters much, so long as same sex couples are granted the legal rights (and drawbacks) as heterosexual couples. Legally, a marrage/civil union is a pretty powerful thing. All couples should have the right to it if they choose.

Thats just my two cents

[Maresche]

Originally posted by DJFyrewolf36
We can argue the whole civil union/marage thing until we are all blue in the face. I don't think the terminology matters much, so long as same sex couples are granted the legal rights (and drawbacks) as heterosexual couples. Legally, a marrage/civil union is a pretty powerful thing. All couples should have the right to it if they choose.

I agree wholeheartedly that the language aspect shouldn't matter. I was just arguing an opinion earlier.

I also agree that if you are going to have the rights to get married, you are going to have to jump through the same hopes if you want to get divorced later.

[Samantha Puppy]

In regards to Civil Unions - Civil matrimony is a contract between two people and the state, in which the state concedes certain "rights" to the couple in exchange for some "benefits". For those to whom religion isn't a large factor (or a factor at all) in their lives, this is fine and I'm sure it's all they needed to make them happy. It doesn't mean their marriage isn't valid, but I certainly don't look at it the same way as mine... And I don't mean that condescendingly - I just look at it a little differently. Not worse, not better - just different.

I am hesitant to say anything else, but I think I should. I do not want to debate, I am merely stating my thoughts on the matter. I have friends who are gay and that hasn't stopped me from being their friends, though I may not agree with their lifestyle - just as if I had an alcoholic friend, I would not stop being their friend. The best way that I can put it is this:

What the Church believes is that "homosexual marriage" can't actually exist, because "marriage" is actually the union of a man and woman for the purpose of creating together and founding a family (that is, having children and raising them up in a particular culture).

Since homosexuals cannot do that, it is not possible for them to be married. This has nothing to do with prejudice against them: it is simply that it is physically impossible.

To call something that homosexuals can do "marriage" changes the meaning of the term "marriage", and devalues the action of a man and woman coming together to found a family, since we no longer have a word for that. We lose the word that has been used to describe that by using the same word to name something completely different from that.

The Church considers the action of a man and woman coming together to found a family to be absolutely essential to the health of society and for its future, but the action of two homosexual persons coming together is purely optional: society would never be harmed if they never did that, so it would be a whole lot better to call that something else, and to keep encouraging men and women to be married, in the true sense of the meaning of that word.

Homosexuals have no need of "legalization" of their relationships in today's society, because the law does not go into the bedrooms of consenting adults, anyway. They are free to do whatever they want, already.

Having said that, I would appreciate it if I weren't attacked for sharing my own personal beliefs on this subject. I don't know who's right - all I know is that this is what I believe what with having been raised in the Church and still remaining active in it today. No one will know what was right and what was wrong until Judgement Day. I'm not pushing my views on anyone, I'm merely giving you insight as to my thoughts on the subject. So let's not turn this into a Christian bashing. 'kay?

[caseysmom]

samantapuppy...no attacks but just my opinion on your opinion

Lots of people marry with no desire to raise children to me lots of these ideas are very outdated...I just think we need to adapt to our changing society...lots of change has been good...look how blacks were treated just 40 years ago.

Also I don't think you should view your gay friends in the same category as alcoholics but just my opinion.

[Samantha Puppy]

Originally posted by caseysmom
Also I don't think you should view your gay friends in the same category as alcoholics but just my opinion.

I didn't mean it like that. I meant, just because my friends may have issues (in my eyes) doesn't mean I won't still be their friend. I know that alcoholism and homosexuality are very different subjects.

[Maresche]

Firstly let me say, I hope you don't take this as a personal attack because I, in no way, mean it to be.

Originally posted by Samantha Puppy
[B]It doesn't mean their marriage isn't valid, but I certainly don't look at it the same way as mine... And I don't mean that condescendingly - I just look at it a little differently. Not worse, not better - just different.


To call something that homosexuals can do "marriage" changes the meaning of the term "marriage", and devalues the action of a man and woman coming together to found a family, since we no longer have a word for that. We lose the word that has been used to describe that by using the same word to name something completely different from that.

These are two statements I completely do not understand.

If civil matrimony and marriage are equal why not call them the same thing. In my mind calling them different things when they are at the fundamental level the same, is saying that one is better that the other. The way I interpret it is Marriage is civil matrimony with the backing of religion, and since it is both it is better. This may not be the way others see it, but it is only understanding I can come up with.

I also don't see why calling the union of a homosexual couple a "marriage" in any way degrads the "marriage" of a heterosexual couple. How does the fact that two other people love each other and are willing to make the same commitments to each other that you made to your spouse in anyway belittle the commitments you made? This makes as much sense to me as saying no one else can get married because there isn't enough love in the world to go around.

[B]Homosexuals have no need of "legalization" of their relationships in today's society, because the law does not go into the bedrooms of consenting adults, anyway. They are free to do whatever they want, already.[B]

I believe this statement to be completely untrue. While it is not illegal to be homosexual and participate in a homosexual relationship in most states (there are still a few where sodomy is illegal), those in committed, long-term homosexual relationships do not have the same rights as those in committed, long-term heterosexual relationships. If one is in the ICU of a hospital, the other is not considered family and therefore not permitted to visit. If they jointly own a home and one dies, the other does not automatically inherit the home through probate, as a heterosexual spouse would. The list goes on and on.

Again, I DO NOT mean this as a personal attack on you Samantha Puppy. I enjoy our conversations/debates too much to do that. But you are not the first person I've heard voice these opinions and I just want to try to understand them.

[caseysmom]

mareshe, I completely agree with you...I have been married for 24 years...lots of people I know get married...then get divorced some commit adultery...that doesn't lessen my marriage in any way.

[Ally Cat's Mommy]

If someone is lucky enough to find their soulmate, I think they should be entitled to formalise their union in whichever way they prefer.

(Assuming that if it was a service in some kind of church, it would probably be church they are already attending, where they have found acceptance)

[guster girl]

SamanthaPuppy, please don't take this as an attack, because that's not what it is. I want to know what you call a marriage where the couple has no intent to have children or can't have children? That's where I'm fuzzy. I've heard a lot of people voice your opinion, but, yet to hear someone answer that question when it's posed to them. All I've gotten so far is "It's just different". I don't know, like I said, I'm just curious....

[heinz57_79]

Here's my take, since it affects me personally...

I couldn't care less if the Catholics want me to marry in a church. I ahve no desire to be married in a church. I just want the same rights afforded to everyone else. I don't think a lot people understand how hard it is to have rights in a same sex relationship. Did you realise that if Bella was sick and in the hospital, the chances of my being told that I am NOT allowed to see her because I'm not FAMILY are huge. In order to make sure I will be able to see her, we will need to get a power of attorney, stating that I am considered family. Do straight people have to do that? No.

say we buy a house, and it's in HER name. Because Bella is quite a bit older than me, this is actually a concern. Should something happen to Bella, even tho we've been together (hypothetically) for 20 years, I could lose the house because I have no rights afforded to me in that instance. We have to make extra sure that it goes into the will.

And children. We want to have children. But because of her age, I'm going to be the one to carry. We have to get all sorts of paperwork filled out so that Bella will be their "guardian", not even PARENT! if something ever happened to me.

Married couples don't have to go through all of this. It's easy. You know who the parents are. Most property is in both names, so that's not a problem. Why should I be denied the same tax breaks, and rights regarding property and children as anyone else? I pay the same taxes. Bella has close to $1300 in taxes taken out a month. I have to abide by the same laws. I am not allowed to murder, steal, or harm anyone. I was born in this country. I am an American citizen. So where the hell does ANYONE get off telling who I can and cannot marry! And how can anyone tell us we're allowed to do what we want? This obviously comes from someone who has never been a victim of a hate crime, or has ever been harrassed because of their sexuality. You know that if it were the straight people's rights being questioned, there would be RIOTS! WHY THE HELL AM I SO DIFFERENT?!?

Edit: Sorry if I sound upset. I AM upset. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's one thing to live it. I appologise for sounding heated. I do NOT appologise for anything else .

[Samantha Puppy]

For a couple who finds they cannot have children, there are other options - adoption being the most popular, surrogacy being another.

For a couple who enters into marriage with no intent to have children, it's obviously still a marriage. Since I'm not a clergywoman, I don't know the Church's view offhand so to try and come up with something would be misleading and ignorant on my part. I can't answer technical questions like that. I can only answer questions based on my own personal opinion. While I'm religious and active in my faith, I do not know all the official views of the Church. (By the way, the Church I mention is not Catholic. My husband is Catholic but I am Missouri-Synod Lutheran.)

There are always going to be loopholes and what not - there always are in every situation because people scrutinize until they're found - but that doesn't change my basic thoughts on this matter...

Thank you for keeping this civil.

[Tonya]

I also understand Samantha's point of view.

I am a Christian and in my church, I don't think they condone homosexuality. But also, they don't condemn it. I believe that in God's eyes, a sin is a sin. Also, I believe that it is up to God to decided what sins are. Everyone sins...and what is a horrible sin to one person, may not be a big deal to another. This world is full of different people and different opinions on how we should live. I try not to stress to much on what everyone else is doing unless it directly affects me. God is the big judge.

As far as rather or not homosexuality is a sin, I really don't know. I really don't care. Even if it is, I've done some sins that are much worse then loving a person.

Two of my closest friends are a lesbian couple. It breaks my heart to see the struggles that they go through. All they want is to be left alone and to have a normal life. Their relationship is alot more true and real then some hetrosexual marriages that I see. They've been together for seven years, are raising a wonderful well balanced son, and are currently trying for another baby (through invitro). They're college educated law abiding hard working citizens, why can't they have a tax break and a some rights?

Out of all honesty, the one downside for me, is talking about this to my son. I've avoided the conversation, and he thinks of them as just close friends. It hasn't crossed his mind to ask how they wound up sharing the same room or having kids.

I want to raise him as a Christian, yet I don't want to raise him thinking that gay people are sinners or horrible people because in my heart, I don't think they are. I guess you can say in that area, the bible contradicts what my heart feels. I have just been avoiding the subject until I am sure how to explain in.

[RICHARD]

If we allow civil unions and then the couple fights, would that make it an un-civil union???