I beleive that God is Love, and when two people love each other enough to enter into marriage,then they experiance a touch of God in their life,even if they are Atheists,if love is there, then so is God.
As far as “Change happens”, has it?
Did i fall asleep for the last 100 years and wake up suddendly,in some new world where no one uses any religious references in their marriage cerimonies? Or beleives what i beleive?
Oh wait! That hasnt happened, youre living in Atheist imagination land!
This is america,the majority of americans are religious,and don’t want their marriages defiled and lowered from a religious and holy union to a “legal contract”.
the right to marry the person of one’s choosing has been legally established. heterosexual people have this right, gay people do not. so tell me again how gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexual people?
no, but you’re happy to let the government do it for you.
your convictions are religious, and it satisfies you that those same religious convictions are what drive public policy? i don’t understand why people are so happy to let religion motivate government. what happens if and when the government is not run by christian conservatives? will you change your views then?
Skammer, you can’t. By definition, anyone who thinks gays deserve less freedom and liberty than straights considers gays to be subhuman. Ridiculing and marginalizing our relationships is no different than categorizing them (and us) as deviant.
This issue is one of the few that is 100% black and white. There is no gray.
But without the roots the plant would indeed perish.
Without Gods love being part of marriage, marriage would be nothing. Without the original idea of God creating man and woman for each other,there would be no marriage.
Heres a question:
Why try to de-religionize a religious ideal,just because atheist conform to part of our ideas, and not another you think you have the right to defile our religious beleifs,and change the meaning of our religions own ideas?
This is incredibly nonsensical. Someone’s sexuality is defined by their choice of partners. So if you’re saying that gay men and women can’t get married, you are discriminating against them based on their sexuality.
**
Hey, it’s the old "some of my best friends . . . " defense. Guess what? That never works to innoculate anyone against allegations of bigotry.
**
OK, here is a list of just some of the legal benefits of marriage. Explain to me what public policy is served by requiring gay couples to spend legal fees and enter into complicated contracts to exercise these rights, or denying those rights to gay couples outright.
Let’s even take a more recent and concrete example. If Britney Spears and Jason Allen Alexander had crashed their car on the Vegas strip coming out of their drive-through wedding, she would have had the unquestioned right to make medical decisions on his behalf (and vice versa). But if the same thing happened to a gay couple, who had been together for many years, they would have had to have a medical power of attorney in order to exercise the same rights. It simply makes no sense that gay couples should have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get a fraction of the rights that heterosexual couples can get just by saying a few words and signing one piece of paper.
so if your religion believes that men are the superior species of the planet, atheists aren’t allowed to believe that too? are you saying that non-religious people have no right believing some of the things that religious people do?
this whole portion of the debate is pointless, because this statement:
is simply false. marriage has been around for far longer and in far more places than judeo-christianity. “holy matrimony”, as such, is your religious version of marriage. no one is asking you to marry gay people in your church.
Ok ,let me change the pace up some here:
I magically become: Darph the Evolutionist (its all mental exercise anyways,per voltaire)
Being gay is somthing that you chose to do instead of do whats natural, in fact by choosing to be gay, you designate yourself to be removed from the gene pool.
Marriage is the natural evolution of a relationship: Its the state you enter when you want to reproduce and expand your genetic heritage. Homosexuals can not enter into this stage of reproduction with homosex person.Simply impossible!
Darph Not that I agree with you on that last post 100%, but please, enlighten us with so far, what has been your faultless logic…
What on earth does that have to do with the legality of marraige?
The only example I can think of is this: when I was in law school, one of my study-buddies was a lesbian. We were reading up on family law, when she announced that she had changed her mind on the subject of gay marriage - it ought not to be allowed.
Why? Because she had receintly inherited a rather large amount of property, and realized that if gay marriage became a reality, any future serious partner of hers could well press her into getting married - and have a claim over any future property acquisitions.
Not having gay marriage is great from the POV of high-earning gays - asuming that they are, well, selfish.
Please show me evidence that predates the historical recordings in the old testament that talk about marraige.
You can’t - thanks.
And of course you can beleive what we do, just don’t try to drag them down from what they are - religious beleifs. Its like trying to justify circumcision without religion. :-/
Sure you can say there are health reasons for it,but can you honestly,being an intellegent and educated human, say to yourself straight faced, that you would be circumsized had not religion brought it upon you? Its the same with marriage and christmas…denying it is absurdly prejudice,in the same way a nazi would deny jesus is a Jew,just because his beleifs prevent him from freeing his mind and accepting it.
Because as i voted as i feel,that homosexuals can not enter into marriage,and against changing the nature of the definition of the state of marriage Yay my opinion.
Yes, but if marriage doesn’t even exist, your partner cannot guilt you into it.
Insisting on a pre-Nup kinda exposes your selfishness (plus, they are quite often not a secure device for protection anyway, at least in some jurisdictions). The point is to be selfish, but not actually have the other person find out …
"Honey, it is plum too bad gay marriage doesn’t exist, but you don’t have to worry, I’ll always take care of you … ".
Darph - I’ll give you that acting on homosexual desires is obviously something one chooses to do or not to do, but I’m usually pretty amazed to hear straight men proclaim that homosexuality is entirely a choice. Could you change sides if you wanted to? Just by making the choice, could you suddenly find men sexually attractive to the point that you would enjoy intercourse with them? I really doubt it. The same goes the other way. In this way, homosexuality is no more a “choice” than heterosexuality, simply less common and therefore more widely misunderstood.
You know it’s so hard to not be prejudiced against Christians when people like Darph make it so easy (and I was raised Catholic).
I would submit that arguing the issue with him/her and any others in that vein is pointless because you will never, ever change their minds. So back to the original OP, I don’t think you can legitimately say that you are for gay rights and then against gay marriage without admitting (even if indirectly) that you are still uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality to some degree.
This is, I believe, just a result of the relatively short passage of time from the general acceptance of homosexuality in our societies. I don’t think some people are truly ready to accept everything about gays yet, even though they know deep down inside that they are wrong to deny gays all rights (including marriage). In time this will change, and it will require the work of pioneers in legislation to bring it about, but I think that is what you are seeing with this apparent contradiction in logic.
I am of course speaking of people who don’t rely on the Bible, Koran or Talmud for their thoughts. Anyone who espouses a disregard for logic based on religious grounds is generally beyond hope, but unfortunately in the US in particular they are a very powerful lobby group.
Yes i do, homosexuals who do not have sex with women do not reproduce by any natural means. If you wish to observe this amazing phenomina,please feel free to visit your local “The village” or “Purple turtle” or whatever :-)D
One of the arguments I keep hearing is that gay marriages would somehow “invalidate” straight marriages. I really don’t understand that argument. I suppose from a strictly religious perspective as Darph has espoused, there may be something to it, but I don’t view marriage from a strictly religious perspective. I’m not the only one, obviously and that attitude isn’t new.
This link provides a basic history and among other things it points out that:
That puts a bit of a late-date spin on the concept, wouldn’t you say?
Marriage is an arrangement. Whether based on love, economics or social traditions, there is no reason to reserve it for one group and not permit another to enjoy the same legal status.
