A logical discussion about Gay Marriage
People have been arguing about who gets the right to marry who, what kind of rights you get if you're married, ect. but everyone has been arguing the wrong debate. The question is not "Can Homosexuals Marry?" but rather "Is Marriage a Religious Institution?" Let me explain:
If Marriage is a religious institution, then your choice of participating in a religious ceremony or not participating in a religious ceremony can not legally affect your taxes and property rights. Although there are aspects of religion that do coincide with law ("Thou shalt not kill"), that's because these laws existed before religion, or are just common-sense bits that are woven into religion. Trust me, stealing was frowned upon before Moses presented any tablets. You can't base my taxes upon my choice of religion, that's strictly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
If Marriage is not a religious institution, but rather a social institution, then you can't use religious principles to exclude people from it because it's a social function for the entire community to participate in.
Seeing that our current tax and property rights system includes myriad provisions for marriage, it's clearly a social institution. It is illegal to exclude people from marriage based upon the religious views of others, and if you disagree with me, then you might as well say "&&&&&" to our founding fathers who defended our rights to Freedom of Religion. If a gay person can say that their religion permits gay marriage, then the government must accept that.
I am not speaking today to endorse homosexual marriage. I am saying that you can't make social laws that everyone must follow based on religious views that aren't held by everyone. Not everyone says homosexuality is evil, and you can't base my taxes and property rights on sexual preference or choice of religion.
I am a gun-owning, BBQ'ing, camping, fishing, hunting, truck-driving, farming, straight male who is more christian than most people who think of themselves as "Christians." Bigotry is the anti-Christ.
If Marriage is a religious institution, then your choice of participating in a religious ceremony or not participating in a religious ceremony can not legally affect your taxes and property rights. Although there are aspects of religion that do coincide with law ("Thou shalt not kill"), that's because these laws existed before religion, or are just common-sense bits that are woven into religion. Trust me, stealing was frowned upon before Moses presented any tablets. You can't base my taxes upon my choice of religion, that's strictly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
If Marriage is not a religious institution, but rather a social institution, then you can't use religious principles to exclude people from it because it's a social function for the entire community to participate in.
Seeing that our current tax and property rights system includes myriad provisions for marriage, it's clearly a social institution. It is illegal to exclude people from marriage based upon the religious views of others, and if you disagree with me, then you might as well say "&&&&&" to our founding fathers who defended our rights to Freedom of Religion. If a gay person can say that their religion permits gay marriage, then the government must accept that.
I am not speaking today to endorse homosexual marriage. I am saying that you can't make social laws that everyone must follow based on religious views that aren't held by everyone. Not everyone says homosexuality is evil, and you can't base my taxes and property rights on sexual preference or choice of religion.
I am a gun-owning, BBQ'ing, camping, fishing, hunting, truck-driving, farming, straight male who is more christian than most people who think of themselves as "Christians." Bigotry is the anti-Christ.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by cransona
I am saying that you can't make social laws that everyone must follow based on religious views that aren't held by everyone.
Of course you can. There are plenty of laws on the books indicating just that.0 -
You shouldn't; it's immoral and, dare I say, unchristian. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
You shouldn't; it's immoral and, dare I say, unchristian.
This isn't a theocracy and you don't hold the monopoly of deciding what is or isn't "christian."0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by cransona
You shouldn't; it's immoral and, dare I say, unchristian.
This isn't a theocracy and you don't hold the monopoly of deciding what is or isn't "christian."
I think hes saying its immoral and unchristian to institute a christian theocracy.0 -
Well, a Christian Theocracy would be ran by the directions of Jesus, not anyone else in the Bible like John the Babtist, ect. who wrote/spoke about Jesus... An actual Christian Theocracy would have 3 laws: worship God and God only; don't be prejudice; love thy neighbor. 0 -
Currently, each state can recognize whatever they want to recognize as a legal union. Most states call this union a marriage and limit it to heterosexual unions.
The government description of a union, whether they call it a marriage or a civil union allows for access to assets, implied powers of attorney, visitation rights in some cases and transfer of assets in the event of death. There is no religious connotation whatsoever in this legal recognition, nor should there be.
Marriage is only a religious institution if the two participants choose it to be. I was married in a church because it had meaning for my wife. It had and has no religious meaning for me as I am a non-practicing atheist. It is still a legally recognized union in every way.
In my way of thinking, homosexual unions, though I don't understand them, are no more or less a marriage than any others, assuming equal levels of commitment and devotion, etc.
As cransona states, religious beliefs should not be considered when determining into which tax bracket a couple should fall. The conservative position should be one of promoting monogamy and individual liberty. This obviously would include a recognition of a documented committed relationship. Sadly the conservative position has been hi-jacked by the religious right, and their insistence upon interjecting faith-based concepts into governance.0 -
Marriage is between one man, and one woman.
That is not from a "religious" perspective, it is simple common sense.
If males mated with males, and females with females, all species, including "homo-sapiens", would be extinct.
If someone wishes to live that lifestyle,.......so be it, but it should not be equated with marriage, whether from a religious or social viewpoint.
What they do about benefits, and coming up with a nifty PC name, like "civil union", is up to others than me, but I am not in favor of calling it "marriage".0 -
Yes, indeed.
Doug0 -
I could care less, just as long as they don't wear white....
possibly something like this would fit the bill!!
0 -
I've not stepped into a church in years so its not about religion to me. I just think its the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Anyone who thinks two men or two women together is normal is from a different planet than I. I wish they would have stayed in the closet. But you can bet if billary is elected they will be recognized. 0 -
I think the idea of gays getting married is gross, BUT I think it's worse when the government tells people what they can and can't do with their lives, including marriage.
I also think the whole thing about having to be registered, get a permit, or whatever to get married is ridiculous.0 -
Its not really the government telling gays they cant get married. Its the majority of the american people. In my part of the country its the vast majority. It was on the ballot a few years back.... 0 -
Edited, by nunn 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Marriage is between one man, and one woman.
That is not from a "religious" perspective, it is simple common sense.
If males mated with males, and females with females, all species, including "homo-sapiens", would be extinct.
If someone wishes to live that lifestyle,.......so be it, but it should not be equated with marriage, whether from a religious or social viewpoint.
What they do about benefits, and coming up with a nifty PC name, like "civil union", is up to others than me, but I am not in favor of calling it "marriage".
exactly..+10..Loko0 -
Don't get me wrong, I think men and women are meant for each other.. but allowing homosexual marriage won't turn people gay, and I think we'll still have enough breeding couples to keep the species alive. Saying that humans will go extinct if we allow homosexual marriage is like saying we are all going to die from the flu if some people didn't get vaccinated.
If two gays want to marry, how does that affect you? Well, it means there will be 2 fewer gays in bars looking for men. Does that bother you? Would you rather see more single gays hitting on men, or fewer single gay men hitting on other men?
Hell... I KNOW that the guys here like lesbian porn. Don't say otherwise, it's not worth your breath.0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
You shouldn't; it's immoral and, dare I say, unchristian.
Look at the ten commandments. Then look at some of our laws against stealing, murder, etc. Where do you thing those laws came from?
Using your logic, if I don't believe in the ten commandments because I think that the Bible is a bunch of made-up hooey, and I don't think that murder is wrong, there should not be a law against it.0 -
Refer to my original argument concerning the origin of laws. 0 -
Once again, I will say,.........marriage in this country, has always been one woman, one man, or a "breeding couple" so to speak. Leave out the Mormons please in this discussion.
I DO NOT believe that the term that this country has always applied to the pre-mentioned, should ever be applied to these kinds of "unions",...........there should be a separation, based upon pre-existing moral principle, whether you, or they, like it or not.
This is what is wrong here now,.........give an inch,.......take a mile!
What will they ask for next?
The ability to marry an animal, and get tax benefits for that.
This is nuts to the vast majority of folks.0 -
quote:A logical discussion about Gay Marriage
Not that I condone it, Lets think outside the box for a moment.
What country, race, and gender does this not happen to?0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
Don't get me wrong, I think men and women are meant for each other.. but allowing homosexual marriage won't turn people gay, and I think we'll still have enough breeding couples to keep the species alive. Saying that humans will go extinct if we allow homosexual marriage is like saying we are all going to die from the flu if some people didn't get vaccinated.
If two gays want to marry, how does that affect you? Well, it means there will be 2 fewer gays in bars looking for men. Does that bother you? Would you rather see more single gays hitting on men, or fewer single gay men hitting on other men?
Hell... I KNOW that the guys here like lesbian porn. Don't say otherwise, it's not worth your breath.
Are you speaking to me, Sir/Madam?
I do not like that kind or any other kind. As for civil unions, any government can pass any law it wishes, however there is no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Period. Two men cannot be married.0 -
Here's my opinion. Marriage is a religious institution. And as far as I know, no religion on earth recognizes gay marriage. So regardless of what religion you practice, if your God doesn't recognise gay marriage, and indeed states that it IS an abomination. You AREN'T MARRIED. Regardless of what laws get passed on earth by man.
The whole issue of gay marriage is nothing more than a leftist attack on traditional American Christian morals. Just the same as the attacks on Christmas, prayer in school, and anything religious appearing in govt. public buildings.
Actually I believe the Govt. should get out of the "marriage" business. Make every union a civil union w/all legal benefits, which would include gays. And let the couple decide if they want the religious ceremony and can find a church to perform it.
But even that won't satisfy the left that is backing the gay marriage agenda. Because as I said before. It's NOT about equality. It's about destroying American moral values.0 -
So Civil Marriage isn't valid? 0 -
Society makes laws to further the betterment of society. I other words, laws are made and obeyed to protect and preserve the species as a whole. Same sex relationships don't contribute to the betterment of society and certainly go against the preservation of the species as a whole. So really the laws of society shouldn't even address same sex relationships at all. No need to make them illegal or legal. They are an abnormal occurrence like albinoism and two headed turtles.
Also, I find it curious that so many gay people define themselves almost totally by their sexuality. Are there other groups who do this? I mean is there a 'Heterosexuals for Republicans' organization? Or a 'Pedophiles for a Just America' group running around?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
23 comments