Do you support homosexual marriages?

[Papay]

Ok now there was this rally against gay marriages in Paris http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21004322 and now i post here to discuss this issue(made another topic but unfortunately it got locked). So i just have a question: What, someones sexual preferences, have to do with marriage? As far as i know the state doesnt promote marriage because the man has sex with the woman but because they will produce offspring. This is the basic logic even if the couple wont have kids. We dont and shouldn't care what kind of stances the couple like in bed

However in the case of homosexuals this changes. We are taught that the offspring issue is unimportant and that two men or two women can marry. If thats the case then why shouldnt i have the right to marry my heterosexual friend just because we live in the same apartment as students?

In my opinion the matter is minor although it has symbolic importance.It has to do with how free homosexuals can shout "i am homosexual" in society. In fact even inside the homosexual community very few will choose to get married so its not a big deal. Do red lines exist though? Shouldnt the state discretely put some barriers?

[The Despondent Mind]

I support them in way that , it's not my business who wants to marry who .

[The Dude]

I support them in the sense that I really don't give a hoot about marriage, nor about gays.

[sumskilz]

Do red lines exist though? Shouldnt the state discretely put some barriers?

If the state wasn't involved in marriage at all that would also solve the problem.

[frozenprince]

If the state wasn't involved in marriage at all that would also solve the problem.

Well that's not happening anytime soon so, until it does the system has to be inclusive of SSC's as well, otherwise it's clearly a biased and discriminatory system.

[Gaidin]

The state provides many benefits to marriage that gives reason to marry that has nothing to do with sexual preference. Thus the state should allow the marriages, and the state should provide the benefits of the marriage. Period. Full stop.

[Valden]

What, someones sexual preferences, have to do with marriage? As far as i know the state doesnt promote marriage because the man has sex with the woman but because they will produce offspring. This is the basic logic even if the couple wont have kids.

As a Catholic I believe marriage is a sacrosanct union between a man and a woman, ‘one flesh’ and one organism together, sealed for life by vows before God and witnessed by peers. The state can and will redefine marriage to fit the zeitgeist of the age, whatever that happens to be. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I disapprove of an active homosexual lifestyle. I would not –however- presume to judge them; I disapprove of most of my own actions as well. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s.

We dont and shouldn't care what kind of stances the couple like in bed

Well that depends; if a specific sexual act was associated with a high(er) level of risk than others, then there would be good public health grounds for discouraging it. This isn’t the main issue here though. A wider point about sexual morality seems more relevant, and is also the point of fundamental disagreement I have with the gay marriage campaign. All promiscuous sex is a negative thing, sex outside marriage is wrong and marriage is a sacrosanct union between husband and wife. As far as I am concerned this leaves a gay man/woman in the same boat as every unmarried straight person who is/has been sexually active. Given all the angry accusations I have received, my position is actually quite unremarkable. Am I a rampant homophobe? I don’t think so. Several of my friends are gay, and I respect them deeply as people, but disapprove of their choice to be sexually active. Just as, many of my friends are straight and unmarried, and I deeply respect them as people but disapprove of their choice to be sexually active. I’m sure both of the said groups disapprove of my views, so in practical terms we all nullify each other. The state can do what it wants and people can vote for whatever they want, but desire is not moral justification, and an entire society can sink into sin without even realising it, as ours has in several areas. As C. S. Lewis said, only a good man can recognise the bad, because the bad don’t believe bad exists. People forget that plurality does not equal truth, but a denial of truth.

However in the case of homosexuals this changes. We are taught that the offspring issue is unimportant and that two men or two women can marry. If thats the case then why shouldnt i have the right to marry my heterosexual friend just because we live in the same apartment as students?

Whether or not you have the right to marry someone of the same gender as you is a legal and not a moral issue. Laws are determined by majority votes in a democracy, and so for you to have a right to do something simply requires a majority who share your opinion (or some shady politics). Also, ‘offspring’ is not the sole purpose of marriage, if it was then instead of celebrating love, the Christian Church would have been devoting all its money to selective breeding programs for the last two thousand years. Reducing the issue to one of sexuality and reproduction would be a false representation of the Christian position; not just sexual, but all round mental and spiritual complementarity belongs to man and woman, not man and man. I appreciate that the homosexual community (if such a term is a misnomer I apologise) has no issue with my religious freedom, and I have no issue with whatever social freedoms democracy chooses to bestow on them; Man’s law is not God’s law, and as St Paul said, Christians should expect to be persecuted in a world where sin is celebrated.

In my opinion the matter is minor although it has symbolic importance.It has to do with how free homosexuals can shout "i am homosexual" in society. In fact even inside the homosexual community very few will choose to get married so its not a big deal. Do red lines exist though? Shouldnt the state discretely put some barriers?

I agree here. In the UK and France the issue has largely been brought up for political capital and thrust onto a mostly disinterested public; even in Christianity, sexual sin is certainly one of the lesser sins. The thing we are big on overcoming is pride; Satan fell through pride and most other sins stem from it.

[Col. Tartleton]

Given the list of sins that are legal it seems awfully stupid for people to get worked up about this one.

[Valden]

Given the list of sins that are legal it seems awfully stupid for people to get worked up about this one.

Agreed, I have no doubt many of the Christians who campaign against homosexual marriage have/are themselves committing other sexual sins and/or have been divorced and remarried. As long as religious freedoms are not violated the secular state can have whatever kind of civil union it wants and call it whatever it wants, and give it whatever social perks it wants. Calling a concept 'marriage' doesn't make it true marriage though, it is substance that counts.

[Enemy of the State]

If marriage is about procreation should an infertile man or woman be deprived of their right to marriage?

[James the Red]

The state should only be able to give benefits to civil unions which may come with marriage, but marriage itself as a concept shouldn't be a concern of the state. ie, there can be no ban on gay marriege if it isnt the states concern, and both hetero and homosexual couples can get the civil union benefits. that's how it should be, so if your gay and you want to get married, you can and the state makes you a civil union and you get the benefits as such, the same as heterosexual couples.

[Lazarus]

Calling a concept 'marriage' doesn't make it true marriage though, it is substance that counts.

But traditional marriages (from the Christian/Catholic background) are economic and political by nature. Does that mean that if you marry for love it doesn't count as a true marriage, because some of the substance is missing? Also, this definition that "marriage is between a man and a woman" wasn't the first definition (leaving Christianity behind now and going further back). It used to be all inclusive. It just changed (which means it can change again). Your concern about religious freedom has already been addressed in that the state would not legally force someone to perform a ceremony (because that would infringe their rights). It would just make those willing to do the ceremony able to (with meaning).

Me? I've said it before and I'll say it again. The difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual is what hole he puts it in (because lets face it, we're disgusted with gay men. Everyone's totally cool with lesbians. If they're hot.) That difference is not a public matter, nor is it great enough to warrant distinguishing them. The state is wrong. Homosexuals have every right to marry.

[AqD]

Anyone can sign some kind of partner-of-life contract covering property sharing and name changing etc.

The government's only role in this is to enforce the rules written in contracts.



But who would be the husband or wife in gay marriage? And what about the money paid by husband after divorce?

[Whukid]

Federal Sales Tax and stripping the same of the right to define Marriage. Problem solved for all sides.

[Garbarsardar]

All citizens should be equal. As long homosexuals have alternative ways (for example a civil union) to obtain the same legal status as the one conferred by a religious ceremony, the ceremonies are better left to religious organizations. Now, if homosexuals want the ceremony on top of their legal right to form a union, they can take that up with their church.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Yes i support it. But i have two problems with how society reacts to homosexuality. 1=female homosexuals or females doing homosexual stuff[like making out] no one has any problem with but two guys doing the same? 2= Movies show love affairs between Aliens and Humans no one has any problems with that but with a consenting member of the same species? No that's despicable.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

And besides Psychological studies have shown that humans may have bisexual traits when born, More importantly Consider this why would a person Choose to go against social norms and decide He/she wants to be gay? Is it not evident that will undoubtedly under go persecution? Hence i say there must be some biological or psychological reason behind Homosexuality.[Mostly biological]

[NRohirrim]

No, I do not support homosexual marriages. And in the world where in many places homosexual marriages are equal to normal marriages, I really hope that my future possibly child won't be homo.

[Lazarus]

That's like saying in a place where blacks can vote you hope your child won't turn in to a black person. And what if your kid is a homosexual? You're going to love him/her less just because...? What? Because they have sex differently to you? Because the person they love happens to be the same gender as they are?

[basics]

" The state is wrong. Homosexuals have every right to marry."

Lazarus,

No, they don't, that is what all the fuss is about. They want the right but no matter how much they cry the end product that they do get will never be inside church, which is their determination to have. The state may well be forced to make new laws that incorporate homosexuals but the church can never do so since its laws are quite simply immutable. Yes, there are some inside institutionalised religion that see no problem but the point here is that these people themselves are not members of the body of Christ except in name only, why?

Because God has made His decrees settling what mariage is and that goes all the way back into the mists of time and accepted in all the religions that came about after the flood. Plainly it is the union of a man and a woman thus becoming one flesh in type just as the church is to Jesus Christ its Head. Put it this way. The church is composed of people who have been separated from the world and its religions by regeneration and so now belonging to God, indwelt by God, cannot therefore change what is now part of them.

The state may change its outlook and attitude towards God and has done many times, institutionalised religion may do the same thing, but the church cannot. Its about obedience, about what is in each part that makes up the whole led and fed by the very Spirit of God. Were God to see it differently then surely He in creation would have provided multi-sexuality in both men and women. Now that could be pointed to evolution as well were it the great way forward as some accept.

But, what happened at the fall of man, was that the nature of man became one with the lusts of his flesh, homosexuality being one of these lusts and no matter what man thinks or what other sins he does, homosexuality is part and parcel of them. In evolutionary terms it amounts to much of the same thing, that two of a kind living together cannot procreate, why? Because they don't have the tools to do so naturally. The practitioners have reached a dead end. Were they to procure children these can never belong to both.

Getting back on track, a church or its leaders can therefore never marry homosexuals any more than it can marry others who are not regenerate people. Any church that does so is not of the church of the living God, the very one that the Lord Jesus Christ is building at this very moment. Did He not say that heaven and earth may pass away but never His words to us? The union of a man and woman are His words. The union of two men or two women are not and no amount of state, so-called churches or any other organisation can ever change that.

So, if the law is changed, are we really going to see ministers of God being brought before courts and even jailed just to satisfy the desire of what is unnatural? I think we are because already we have seen this effect being enacted in the realms of who can or who cannot invite into their homes even though these homes are part of a business.