Should gay mariages be legal?

[Dude_Doc]

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.gay.marriages/index.html

Ultimately, this brings up the questions. Is it moral? Will religion sooner or later accept it? I, for one, think it should not be legalized. I mean, sure, be homosexual or bio-sexual, but keep away from "the rest". Anyways, what do you think?

[nampigai]

I see no reason why not.

[Dude_Doc]

I don't know. Perhaps it is because I'm a Christian. I see it imoral.

[nampigai]

so do I, I'm no fanatic though, people can do what ever they wanna do in their bedroom, and love whom ever they wanna love, I wont stop them.,

[Dante]

It would be so much simpler if it wasn't called "marriage," which has been a religious ceremony for ages.

And another thing, why should religion have a say in what governments do anyway? It's none of their business.

It kind of goes without saying that I think gay 'unions' (for want of a better word) should be legal.

[Dude_Doc]

Marriage is religion, in one way or another. Sure, they can do whatever they want in the "bedroom", but not marriage.

[Anathema]

However married couples may have tax advantages over unmarried couples in some countries. Marriage as in the traditional, christian sense has pretty much lost its word, not all of them are being carried out in church anymore. In the Netherlands gay marriage is already legal, and I don't see what problem there is with that.

[Dante]

Me neither.

[otheymzefedaykin]

In France, there is no homosexual marriage! But we found an alternative for not to shock the monks! It is the PACS! A wedding sort without being one! It is as much for the homoes as for the h

[SurlyPIG]

They were just legalized in Canada a couple weeks ago, a decision that went all the way to and was upheld by the Supreme Court. IMO the only real decision to make is whether they are to be called Marraiges or not. Legal union status is a given, IMO. I'm not one to decide what the terminology is to be.

[ordos45]

Sure why not make them legal unions?

[Acriku]

The only reason people would oppose such a thing is because of their bigoted religion. Denying gay people tax privileges from marriage is evil. I hope people can one day look beyond their bigoted religion and see people as human beings who deserve exactly what we deserve, no more no less.

[Terror]

hmm i'm for it i guess. I see no real reason why we should halt it. I'm not gay, and i'm not fond of seeing to men kissing each other (2 women is a different matter though :D ) but, who am i to forbid them.

[ordos45]

The only reason people would oppose such a thing is because of their bigoted religion. Denying gay people tax privileges from marriage is evil. I hope people can one day look beyond their bigoted religion and see people as human beings who deserve exactly what we deserve, no more no less.

Before you go off on another religion tangent, I've encountered many Atheists who think homosexual marriages are wrong. So it isn't just religion that causes bigotry.

[Acriku]

They are bigoted, as well. Although, I haven't met one of those atheists, so I don't know if they hang around your area or what.

Actually, I haven't met many atheists alone. Let alone, anti-homosexual atheists. This leads me to doubt you've met many anti-homosexual atheists, but hey it's possible. What would their reasons be for their anti-homosexuality? Without a religious doctrine there's nothing except mistaken values.

[Gobalopper]

This is like people wanting to allow girls into boy scouts or women into Augusta. Marriage has always been a religious institution, hence the whole priest and church thing, that has been centered around raising children. Most, if not all, major religions agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is no reason to allow gay marriages, if a gay couple want to be recognized as a living together for tax purposes or whatever make it easier for them to do so as common law partners.

[SurlyPIG]

You can get married at city hall by someone not affiliated with any religious group at all. I suppose you can argue the symantics of the word 'marraige', but is that really the only good reason for opposition? I'm not a linguist or a historian or anyone qualified to say what terms fit what, but is it really necessary for the state to do that?

There are other connotations associated with marriage besides religious ones, Gob, that's essentially what this whole issue is all about. Yes a marraige is often a religious institution, but not always anymore, like the city hall example I cited above. You are, of course, entirely correct that marraige has traditionally been a religiously oriented union between a man and a woman, but the whole reason this is an issue is because of other things associated with the union. Namely, two loving people in a monogomous relationship that wish to spend the rest of their days with one another. That's the kind of connotation gays want to surround their unions. Calling it a "common law partnership" sounds more like they're going into a binding business agreement and not a personal, lifetime relationship (which some people actually do; get married for tax legal advantages).

What's in a name?

[Gobalopper]

Granted you can get married without going through a priest/church, Vegas an obvious example, but it is still between a man and woman. From the dictionary: "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." The idea behind marriage has been to start a family and it has always been between a man and a woman.

Common Law Partnership ... Marriage

Whats in a name? Why should they care what its called if the word marriage means nothing to them. It does however mean something to people who are religious, in fact its one of the most important.

I just don't see the point in watering down the meaning of marriage even more then it already has been.

[Navaros]

The only reason people would oppose such a thing is because of their bigoted religion. Denying gay people tax privileges from marriage is evil.

of course "gay marriages" should be illegal. *"Gays"* should be illegal!

and they were in North America and most other countries in the world for most of human history. hopefully they will become illegal again very soon

it could be argued that "gay people" is an oxymoron since God says that they have forsaken their humanity and become Abominations

those who take a Christian view of things are not bigots. the bigots are guys like you - Akriku - and ACElethal. both of you call those who take a Christian view of things bigots just because they are righteous and you are not. that makes you both bigots. you are bigotted against moral people who take a Christian view of things, as well as each and every Bible-believing Christian, Torah-believing Jew, or Koran-believing Muslim

"Gays" should be at the very least convicted and locked up for many years. better yet, Holy Law as it pertains to them should be enforced as it used to be. since the very act of being "gay" is a sickeningly heinous crime, it is absurd to think that they could "marry"

next thing you're gonna see pedophile movements like NAMBLO who will have men saying that they should be allowed to marry their 11 year-old boyfriends.

that is only *slightly* worse than "gays" 'marrying'

the time has come to stand up for morality and righteousness and just say no to evil Hell-bound paths of deviancy

*EDIT* for Namapiggy: i am not Catholic, I do not support anything the "Catholic Church" does, and i completely believe that each and every "gay" Catholic "Priest" who did "gay" things with boys should be executed along with all other "gays"

[Duncan_ghola]

i agree with navaros on this one,

[nampigai]

LMFAO @ Nav

how the fuck can you call people like Acriku and ACE begots and say that the church is righteous? Oh yea having sex (if you can call it that) with small children is just soooo righteous. We see how the catholic church condemn gay marriage, however they keep awefull quiet about their own pedophiles?

Nav your view on gays and people not sharing your view just shows how big a begot you are yourself, I don't really want to tell you to be ashamed cause I don't think you can have that feeling. All you are Nav is a sad little man, the fool on the hill. Fair enough you don't like gays, but your views or the way you state them jebus.....

[lowzeewee]

I am neither gay nor christian and I don't see why gay marriage should be immoral,illegal and not allowed?

[Timenn]

Good one NaMpIgAi.

Nav, you sound like a Christian Fundamentalist!

I didn't knew the English word marriage was different from our Dutch translation of it. With us it doesn't have to do anything with religion. You can marry at the city hall to. Our word means something like loyalty.

And gay marriages/unions whatever to call it, shoud be legal (like we have here already). There is no reason to forbid 2 people who express their love.

I can't understand how you can love a guy, but I respect gays. Becuase I can understand how you can love someone, and how cruel it can be that you are not allowed to love that someone

[Anathema]

Gob, marriage is not reserved for christians/jews/muslims only. Not all (heterosexual) married couples decide to have children, so the idea of marriage is not necessarily starting a family, but sometimes just sharing lives together.

Nav: did you ever consider visiting a psychiatrist?

[Dante]

How about everyone just ignores us? Then we'll form a mafia and take over the world without you noticing, and do what we like. :)