Poll: Gay Marriage

[Bigeyez]

Only on paper, but no church, since the church has been against homosexuality for 2000 years so that would be blasphemy

But you used to go to Hell for eating meat on a friday so why can't they change their opinion on gay marriage?

what you eat meat on friday??!! (just joking)

Well they have preached against it much harder than eating on friday, and they cant just go around changing holy law, its not up to them to change things anyway, some things are better left the way they are.

That is a silly view, the church will continue to lessen in importance if it doesn't change and adapt to the modern world. The core principles of Christianity are peace and love, denying a group of people the right to show and consummate their love in the eyes of god because people 2000 years ago didn't like it is just too daft for words.

That your subjective opinion not what everyone else thinks, the primary point of the church being that marriage is the union of a man and woman under god, and they are expected to make children and form the natural bond as they should, whilst gay marriage wont produce anything, other than adopted children that will 100% be gay as well, and the church shouldnt adopt to everything modern, in that way under the cross there would be a coca cola sign

There is absolutely no proof that children adopted by a gay family will be gay themselves, that is such an ignorant and small minded view.

oh please at least 90% turn out gay, its a fact, you grow up in the belief that its how its supposed to be and that you should be like your parents, its how a child's brain evolves by learning from its parents, maybe not in tv shows but thats the reality,perhaps you are the closed minded one. Heres a tip, visit other countries and see their view on religion and homosexuality, not every nation is USA or Scandinavia, im speaking for all people and all churches not just one place.

Its not a fact, its an outright fabrication, and I challenge you to bring forth a single legitimate study that says anything even remotely to the contrary.

My church accepts gay marriage. You telling me what I'm allowed to believe?

Did i at any point tell you what to believe? - no. i dont really care that your church accepts gay marriage, thats their choice, im orthodox christian and gay marriage is not at all accepted, but feel free to believe what you want.

Alright, so you do think they should allow gay marriage. Glad we have that cleared up.

Ok are you crazy? By not influencing your subjective opinion i support gay marriage? do i also support hitler for eating cookies? You and your church can believe what you want, you have the freedom of opinion but its different from mine

So you are allowed to deny my church the right to marry gay people, because you're against gay marriage, but my church can't tell yours that it has to marry gay people? Either all churches are allowed to marry gay people if it is there prerogative, or you are breaking 1st amendment rights. Why is your church given government approval, but mine is not?

How can i possibly deny your church anything, im not superman, something i say wont make them give a damn, and the first amendment only works in the us even though other people have similar laws. Bottom line is im not denying your church the right to marry gay people, just because i dont approve of it doesnt mean il go and burn it down. Different churches have different laws. What church are you in anyway?- if you dont mind me asking

...Except that by saying Gay Marriage should be illegal your are denying his church from the right to marry gay people.

As far as

Indeed, but there are as many books supporting my side and as many references in that article that would claim otherwise, so its pointless to argue since both sides are represented

Lolwhat? Do you want me to link to a bias site next time. My point in telling you to read about the history of marriage and it's relationship to religions is because you were spreading misconceptions about marriage. Like how you said the church has been against same-sex marriage for 2000 years, yada yada.

My entire point in this debate is that If gay people want to get married and a church wants to let gay people get married they should have the right to do so. I'm NOT trying to force your church to marry gay people, I'm not saying you have to go be best friends with gay people, I'm just saying WE as a people need to give gays their rights, because right now by passing laws banning gay marriage we are discriminating against them.

 

[cobra_ky]

There are conceivable scenarios where the "homosexuality gene" is recessive and is transmitted through genetic carriers, but without homozygous individuals mating and passing on the gene, slowly through the generations you would see a drop off of the gene as it slowly gets replaced by more dominant genes.

i don't see why this should be, since heterozygous individuals will produce more heterozygous offspring who carry the recessive trait.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Well, lost in the sea of ever-unaviodable religious debate:

As far a government-recognized civil unions, yes, it should be legal. I don't think "marriage" in the religious sense should apply to legal recognition. For work benefits, for tax breaks, for the ability to adopt, other legal proceedings, I think anyone should be able to make anyone a legal "partner", be they hetero, homo, or just really good friends (of any combination). The idea of the government supporting one person or pair over another because they are "in love" or what have you is just silly, distinguishing whether or not they "love" someone of the same gender or not is just a multiplier on the silliness.

If a religion doesn't recognize it, that's their call, that's not a legal issue.

 

[Crimsane]

"We can never judge the lives of others, because each person knows only their own pain and renunciation. It's one thing to feel that you are on the right path, but it's another to think that yours is the only path." - Paulo Coelho

 

[cathou]

Second, the battle for gay marriage never in any way intend to force churches to marry gays. Even i wouldnt not support that. It always had been a battle for religious marriage within churches that accept it on their own free will, or civil marriage, like any atheist couple can have, away from the church...

I agree with you on this and i think you are right, thats what ive been trying to say all this time, they are not forcing themselves upon the church and its upon the churches to decide whether to support it or not, but civil marriage is how it should be

good, but the faulty point right now, is that what's proposed is not two have two kind of marriage, but three :

religious marriage
Civil marriage
Civil union


What's bugging people mostly is that civil union doesnt not grant the same right as civil marriage.

 

[Nukey]

legal, i fell that the only reason people are getting upset is because of there religious beliefs saying that gay marriage is a sin, and we all know what stupid horrible things religion has caused. so i say let gays get married, and lets get it over with.

 

[Xanadu84]

Only on paper, but no church, since the church has been against homosexuality for 2000 years so that would be blasphemy

But you used to go to Hell for eating meat on a friday so why can't they change their opinion on gay marriage?

what you eat meat on friday??!! (just joking)

Well they have preached against it much harder than eating on friday, and they cant just go around changing holy law, its not up to them to change things anyway, some things are better left the way they are.

That is a silly view, the church will continue to lessen in importance if it doesn't change and adapt to the modern world. The core principles of Christianity are peace and love, denying a group of people the right to show and consummate their love in the eyes of god because people 2000 years ago didn't like it is just too daft for words.

That your subjective opinion not what everyone else thinks, the primary point of the church being that marriage is the union of a man and woman under god, and they are expected to make children and form the natural bond as they should, whilst gay marriage wont produce anything, other than adopted children that will 100% be gay as well, and the church shouldnt adopt to everything modern, in that way under the cross there would be a coca cola sign

There is absolutely no proof that children adopted by a gay family will be gay themselves, that is such an ignorant and small minded view.

oh please at least 90% turn out gay, its a fact, you grow up in the belief that its how its supposed to be and that you should be like your parents, its how a child's brain evolves by learning from its parents, maybe not in tv shows but thats the reality,perhaps you are the closed minded one. Heres a tip, visit other countries and see their view on religion and homosexuality, not every nation is USA or Scandinavia, im speaking for all people and all churches not just one place.

Its not a fact, its an outright fabrication, and I challenge you to bring forth a single legitimate study that says anything even remotely to the contrary.

My church accepts gay marriage. You telling me what I'm allowed to believe?

Did i at any point tell you what to believe? - no. i dont really care that your church accepts gay marriage, thats their choice, im orthodox christian and gay marriage is not at all accepted, but feel free to believe what you want.

Alright, so you do think they should allow gay marriage. Glad we have that cleared up.

Ok are you crazy? By not influencing your subjective opinion i support gay marriage? do i also support hitler for eating cookies? You and your church can believe what you want, you have the freedom of opinion but its different from mine

So you are allowed to deny my church the right to marry gay people, because you're against gay marriage, but my church can't tell yours that it has to marry gay people? Either all churches are allowed to marry gay people if it is there prerogative, or you are breaking 1st amendment rights. Why is your church given government approval, but mine is not?

How can i possibly deny your church anything, im not superman, something i say wont make them give a damn, and the first amendment only works in the us even though other people have similar laws. Bottom line is im not denying your church the right to marry gay people, just because i dont approve of it doesnt mean il go and burn it down. Different churches have different laws. What church are you in anyway?- if you dont mind me asking

Congregationalist, part of the UCC. I'm not really a organized religion type anymore, but that's the one I identify with.

The thing that doesn't make sense is how can you think that a Church should have the right to marry people if they so desire, without permitting gay people to get have the same rights to marriage as a straight couple? It sounds to me like you would logically be required to be pro gay marriage, regardless of your opinion on homosexuality itself.

 

[deadmandancin]

Gay people should be allowed to get married, the bible was not writen by god it was written people who thought they had the right to claim they were. There is no doubt in my mind that if there is a god and he made everyone if someone is gay thats pretty much the way he/she/it meant it to be.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Canada doesn't seem to be dying off any faster than usual just because gays are marrying. I'd have to see some bad riots against it here in Canada before I think it's a God awful idea, and I've found too many loopholes to Biblical acts against homosexuals to think they're evil or any such crap.

Let them be married, and if anyone gets upset, set them straight on it all, if anyone gets insanely upset, I expect the Klan to grow in numbers.

Speaking of the Bible, I used to take the position of, "You can't take the bible literally" in regards to gay marriage. Then, I read this

http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html

Even the Bible is fine with homosexuality. Ironically, Sodom and Gomorrah condemns homophobes.

I'd take that with a lot of salt. Yes, sodom and gammorah was an issue of just being ungodly altogether, "sodomy" as we understand it now got the association after the fact. The idea of persecuting homosexuals is also not biblical.

The verses in Leviticus, that the author cites as "picking and choosing" are also "picked and chose". "lying with man as with woman" is not an allegory to any pegan ritual, it is listed with sleeping with one's mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, grandmother, and animals. They are sexual sins, listed as such, punishable by death, the wage of sin under the old testament. The punishment changed with the new testament, the definition of sin did not. As for the eating pigs and shellfish, they are listed as "unclean", with, yes, a woman on her period, skin infections, and diseases. Unclean does not equal sin. There was a process and period of time involved in becoming "clean" again, not a punishment of death. It was about hygeine and sanitation, not sin.

Persecuting any kind of sinner, liers, theifs, adulterers, coveters, etc... isn't something that "Christians" are meant to judge. "Christians" should realize that, by the standard of the Bible, everyone is a sinner, including them. They shouldn't hate, but love. The "job" of a Christian is to introduce people into relationship with Christ. That's it. Christ will do the "fixing" of sin, and if the person recognizes the sin, or is convicted of the sin in their life, and asks a fellow Christian to help, that's when a Christian can "intervene" or "help", not condemn and make them feel like crap. At best, a Christain could say "hey, I'm pretty sure that's a sin", if the "sinner" agrees and wants help, great. If they disagree, it is then between them and Christ, and the "Christian" needs to back off, maybe ask again later, but otherwise it should have no effect on how they treat the other person.

Sorry, somewhat off-topic, though the topic always turns to "Christians are intolerant", and I hate it when people, on both sides, don't understand what the bible says and skew it to their own purposes.

And again, the issue is legal marriage, not religious marriage, and people need to stop mixing the two topics.

 

[Skutch]

Only thing I feel like saying to be honest is "The Fall of Rome."

Sigh... so true. It's unfortunate that history may repeat itself.

It's unfortunate you obviously have little knowledge of the history that you are apparently so afraid of.
It took almost one thousand years for Rome to fall, and another thousand after that for the last remnants of it to be conquered. The US has only existed as an independent country for 233 years, has been a world power for less than half of that, and has only been a dominant superpower for the last 60 years. That'd barely be take up a footnote on the pages of human history.
It's also widely accepted that Rome's downfall had more to do with the consolidation of power by military leaders and a succession of horribly inept emperors that eroded the power of the Senate, causing the people to lose their confidence in the strength and integrity of their government. The Western Roman Empire was actually brought down when its own military turned against it.
The assertion that homosexuality or social progression in any way contributed to the downfall of an entire Empire is patently absurd, and is at best disingenuous. It has been well documented that homosexuality was common and socially accepted long before the Roman Empire was even founded. If Rome fell on account of it catching a big ol' case of The Gay, it sure took a while to kick in.
It's a little more telling that it took less than a century after Christianity was adopted as the religion recognized by the state for Rome to collapse, especially considering that adoption resulted in sanctioned persecution of the remaining more socially tolerant, polytheistic religions.

 

[Skutch]

Canada doesn't seem to be dying off any faster than usual just because gays are marrying. I'd have to see some bad riots against it here in Canada before I think it's a God awful idea, and I've found too many loopholes to Biblical acts against homosexuals to think they're evil or any such crap.

Let them be married, and if anyone gets upset, set them straight on it all, if anyone gets insanely upset, I expect the Klan to grow in numbers.

Speaking of the Bible, I used to take the position of, "You can't take the bible literally" in regards to gay marriage. Then, I read this

http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html

Even the Bible is fine with homosexuality. Ironically, Sodom and Gomorrah condemns homophobes.

I'd take that with a lot of salt. Yes, sodom and gammorah was an issue of just being ungodly altogether, "sodomy" as we understand it now got the association after the fact. The idea of persecuting homosexuals is also not biblical.

The verses in Leviticus, that the author cites as "picking and choosing" are also "picked and chose". "lying with man as with woman" is not an allegory to any pegan ritual, it is listed with sleeping with one's mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, grandmother, and animals. They are sexual sins, listed as such, punishable by death, the wage of sin under the old testament. The punishment changed with the new testament, the definition of sin did not. As for the eating pigs and shellfish, they are listed as "unclean", with, yes, a woman on her period, skin infections, and diseases. Unclean does not equal sin. There was a process and period of time involved in becoming "clean" again, not a punishment of death. It was about hygeine and sanitation, not sin.

Persecuting any kind of sinner, liers, theifs, adulterers, coveters, etc... isn't something that "Christians" are meant to judge. "Christians" should realize that, by the standard of the Bible, everyone is a sinner, including them. They shouldn't hate, but love. The "job" of a Christian is to introduce people into relationship with Christ. That's it. Christ will do the "fixing" of sin, and if the person recognizes the sin, or is convicted of the sin in their life, and asks a fellow Christian to help, that's when a Christian can "intervene" or "help", not condemn and make them feel like crap. At best, a Christain could say "hey, I'm pretty sure that's a sin", if the "sinner" agrees and wants help, great. If they disagree, it is then between them and Christ, and the "Christian" needs to back off, maybe ask again later, but otherwise it should have no effect on how they treat the other person.

Sorry, somewhat off-topic, though the topic always turns to "Christians are intolerant", and I hate it when people, on both sides, don't understand what the bible says and skew it to their own purposes.

And again, the issue is legal marriage, not religious marriage, and people need to stop mixing the two topics.

Keeping in mind that I agree with most of your post, my own conclusion is that while many religions, Christianity specifically and Islam especially, are not in themselves inherently intolerant, it is the way in which they are practiced and preached that often leads to intolerance. Whether this is a shortcoming of the belief system itself or a simple byproduct of Human Nature is a topic for its own discussion. But whatever the reason, the history of Christianity is a bloody one. The same goes for Islam and Judaism. Even Buddhism, the most theoretically peaceful and tolerant of all the world religions, has a history full of violence, genocide, and religious persecution.

Putting it simply, Christianity may not necessarily be intolerant, but a hell of a lot of "Christians" are.

 

[Doug]

Snip

Ok, these numbers are largely random, and almost certainly do not reflect the real numbers, but it shows that a 'homosexual' gene could have evolutionally value. Other factors include the possiblity of homosexual couples increasing the survival chances of the offspring of the heterosexual couple by either adopting the children in the event of death, or by aiding in community survival (more eyes on guard around a camp, men who can be trusted to guard the women in the event of attack, etc, etc, ad nausem for earlier societies)

While I am on your side and completely agree with you I must point out some of the benefits you point out are more social benefits. These benefits wouldn't be perpetuated in the gene pool by any of these actions, more individuals would survive because of these benefits, but more of these genes would not be passed to the next generation because the homosexual individuals would not have offspring. There are conceivable scenarios where the "homosexuality gene" is recessive and is transmitted through genetic carriers, but without homozygous individuals mating and passing on the gene, slowly through the generations you would see a drop off of the gene as it slowly gets replaced by more dominant genes.

Ahhh, logical mistake there; social groups share common genetic characteristics. Especially family members, which is where social bonds are commonly the strongest. We can imagine a group of brothers, Steve, John, and Bob, where Steve and John are straight and Bob is gay; Uncle Bob can baby sit John and Steve's kids, and in the event of Steve, John, and/or their wive's dying, Bob can adopt the kids. Because of the family relationship, the nephews and nieces all have alot of Bob's genes, and hence its an indirect way of Bob's genes ensuring they are passed on. We see this behaviour in species where the Alpha pair only get to breed, such as Meerkats, who are known for leaving the kids with one uncle/aunt to babysit them whilst the pack go searching for food and the like.

Hence, these 'social' benefits have real genetic value; this is the common mistake people make when they look at evolution - they only look at individuals within a species, not their species as a whole, or in the case of social animals, the societal grouping.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Keeping in mind that I agree with most of your post, my own conclusion is that while many religions, Christianity specifically and Islam especially, are not in themselves inherently intolerant, it is the way in which they are practiced and preached that often leads to intolerance. Whether this is a shortcoming of the belief system itself or a simple byproduct of Human Nature is a topic for its own discussion. But whatever the reason, the history of Christianity is a bloody one. The same goes for Islam and Judaism. Even Buddhism, the most theoretically peaceful and tolerant of all the world religions, has a history full of violence, genocide, and religious persecution.

Putting it simply, Christianity may not necessarily be intolerant, but a hell of a lot of "Christians" are.

That's... essentially one thing that I was trying to say. To deny homosexuality is a sin, biblically, is wrong. To persecute and hate and all the other horrible things "Christians" do to homosexuals, "sinners", and others that they... well... just plain don't like (personally, not biblically)... isn't biblical at all. Sadly, yes, a majority of them do it anyway under the pretense that it is. Hence "both sides skewing it to their own ends."

Some edits to clarify.

 

[TikiShades]

Love is love.

Who is going to say you can't have the same rights as someone because you are different than them?

Yeah, but not all love is justified.

While I AM pro-gay, i disagree with the second part of the post. You might think that you and your horse are madly in love, but you aren't.

Oh, and whoever said that gay love is unnatural under God is an idiot. Gay animals win.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The simple truth is- homosexuality is born not chosen.

THIS 1000X THIS

You can't chose to be gay. What people don't get is that being gay and being effeminate are separate things. Take away the lisp and the teenage girl attitude and they're still gay.

FYI, I hate flamers like Perez Hilton that make everyone uncomfortable. if you watch Bruno, that's how a gay person SHOULDN'T act.

Yeah. Perez Hilton is pretty annoying

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I would like to hear your stances and your points supporting your stances.

I am personally for It's legalization for the following reasons:

I believe Church and State should be sepparated.

The simple truth is- homosexuality is born not chosen. Just as I am naturally attracted to women, some men are naturally attracted to other men. I wouldn't want people to tell me I couldn't be with women, so I don't want to do the same to gays.

I believe that in a free country the majority should not be able to vote down the rights of a minority. That's how the oppression of racial minorities and women happened.


So, those are some of my arguments. Tell me yours. However, always remember

NO FLAMING

That's not how to resolve differences- it's how to irritate them.

I am certain this thread has probably been done before but I couldn't find it ANYWHERE using the search engine. So here we go.

ok i believe that gay is born not chosen but i have to dissagree with you saying its natural the very fact that people are against it is because its unnaturality afterall sex sole purpose is to make children and continue the species so sex with the same genitalia defeats the purpose therefore not natural.

other animals arnt gay most of those you hear about is to show dominance over the other

men are suppost to give not take its just the way it is

im not homophobic as i dont have an irrational fear of them plus i have gay friends doesnt mean im not allowed to disagree with what they do

also marriage i said no not because i dont thin gays should marry mainly because im straight and i hate marriage but so does my girlfriend so its all good

As has been brought up many times on this thread- there are gay animals.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The simple truth is- homosexuality is born not chosen.

Arguable. Some would say it about the environment they grew up in etc etc. That homosexuality is born is not a simple truth or self-evident.

Well, all research that I've seen come out from geneticists and such since... well since I've been alive points to it being a born trait