ranchodeluxe
New Member
should gay marriages be legalized? this is another issue im not real sure about and havent made a decision on whether im for or against. a penny for your thoughts.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
the gay marriage issue
- Thread starter ranchodeluxe
- Start date
australopithecus
Active Member
Homosexuality is only an issue for people with more teeth than brain cells. Of course gay people should be allowed to marry, it shouldn't be an issue.
kenandkids
New Member
O f course they should. Society can only become stronger when loving, dedicated people are allowed to form secure bonds.
ranchodeluxe
New Member
why should homosexuals be able to change the ceremonies and traditions of religious establishments? and why would they even want to? you have to try to understand that it is important to religious people that they keep their sacred ceremonies in tradition and free from what they believe is an abomination to their god.
australopithecus
Active Member
No one's talking about religious ceremonies. Marriage =/= religion.
kenandkids
New Member
ranchodeluxe said:
What ceremonies do you imagine that they want to change? Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It predates every current religion and exists in non-religious societies.
The simplest thing for a person who feels that gay marriage is bad, is not get to get married to someone of the same sex.
ranchodeluxe said:
When people are talking about Gay marriage they are not talking about marriage in the religious sense, but marriage in the legal sense. In the USA there are certain rights which can only be obtained through marriage (such as sponsoring your spouse for citizenship).
If marriage was not a legal establishment that gave certain rights and privileges to couples, gay marriage would not mater at all.
also note that there are some religions that have no problem marrying gay couples, so outlawing it by calling it a religious establishment holds no ground because it violates the establishment clause by favoring some religions over others.
CommonEnlightenment
New Member
I'm pretty sure the church could decide whether or not they would want to perform the ceremony. Do it at a courthouse or something.
Solution offered
Next Please.
Solution offered
Next Please.
The only issue is whether or not people should have the right to stick their nose in other peoples business.
I say no.
I would gladly punch a protester proselytizing about the abomination of gay marriage square in the face at a marriage ceremony.
The church does not own marriage.
Would be like protesting religious people being allowed to pray because psychotic people have been talking to themselves far longer than religious people.
I say no.
I would gladly punch a protester proselytizing about the abomination of gay marriage square in the face at a marriage ceremony.
The church does not own marriage.
Would be like protesting religious people being allowed to pray because psychotic people have been talking to themselves far longer than religious people.
kenandkids
New Member
Pretty much yes. The mormons, baptists and catholics are the primary backers of every anti-gay and anti-gay marriage issue in America, and always for religious reasons. I've yet to hear a non religious person speak against it.lrkun said:
BrainBlow
New Member
Well I think gay (religious) marriage is just a testament to how religion is being "pussified" and made more and more harmless.
Though moderates may say there is place for it, I see absolutely no place in the bible that can be used to make gay marriage "ok". their religion simply doesn't allow for it.
So it is a clear sign the religion is losing power, something I don't mind.
Though moderates may say there is place for it, I see absolutely no place in the bible that can be used to make gay marriage "ok". their religion simply doesn't allow for it.
So it is a clear sign the religion is losing power, something I don't mind.
Thanks.
Giliell
New Member
Every church is free to decide on that issue for themselves. Yet marriage is a legal right that comes with a lot of benefits which is granted by the state.
Many traditional arguments against gay marriage like that the benefits of marriage are meant to help families raise their children simply don't hold water anymore in modern times. Straight couples enjoy the benefits even though they have no children but gay couples who raise children (and often in the case of adopted children kids nobody else wants to have) are denied those benefits, or single parents, who have it even worse than a gay couple.
If you want to take a look, I recommend this youtube-channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/depfox
Watch their videos, their lives, their family.
Gunboat Diplomat
New Member
If you want other people's thoughts on a subject, it's appreciated if you offer your thoughts first...ranchodeluxe said:
ranchodeluxe
New Member
Gunboat Diplomat said:
actually in my opinion, "no one" should be allowed to marry. not even straight people. i believe the constitution of marriage is a sham all together. if you want to be with someone than you be with them and one should not need a government licence or churchs approval for that. this is why i can never be for or against gay marriage or straight marriage to be perfectly honest. now you see why my opinion was not offered first. :|
the reason why i made the post is actually to explore the reasons why people feel the need to get married. why is the constitution of marriage so necessary for people?
Memeticemetic
New Member
ranchodeluxe said:
Heh. Take this as an endorsement of the idea that you should state your opinion first, since I find this a much more interesting question than the gay marriage thing. I would say people like making a public declaration of their intentions on a societal level. A stable relationship with a partner is (according to other people, not so much in my case) a beneficial thing that people seem to want recognized. Religions have used this desire to perpetuate themselves and inure themselves into the fabric of society.
Since so many people seem to want this institution it also seems fairly natural that governments would legitimize and incentivize it. I don't really claim to get it myself, but I certainly don't see any harm in it. Nor do I see any harm in any form of partnership people seek.
Divergedwoods
New Member
It is weird, but we as as species love ceremonies, rites of passage, set milestones in our lives; i cant think of a human culture that doesn't celebrate Iconic events of a persons life in a memorable fashion. Births, reaching "adulthood", deaths, graduations and marriages. Ive heard the argument many times of weather we as a species -biologically and psychologically- are monogamous or polygamous, I personally think that this is ultimately irrelevant. the fact is that we live in a society that glorifies romantic monogamy as the basis for a family, a nucleus of close kin,
I don't see the institution of marriage as a fascistic, Orwellian, concoction to maintain control over the lives of romantically attached couples (at least in the legal sense or marriage*); I see it as a service, you get -as a married couple- benefits that make sense both ideologically and for practical purposes.
as societies and reasonings change, so should laws and in the same way that we consider a single parent or a "freely united" couple as acceptable basis for a family, and childless married couples as an appropriate lifestyle, so should gay couples be allowed to marry and start families, their right to do it should be championed despite the objections of religious bigots
*this is an odd confusion I see whenever gay marriage is debated, if marriage started as a solely religious concept (which is quite likely) it has permeated society in its entirety, and with the apparition of a secular authority, the need for a secular form of this institution becomes obvious; once this is established there is no room for any sort or religious ideal in it as far as the government is concerned
I don't see the institution of marriage as a fascistic, Orwellian, concoction to maintain control over the lives of romantically attached couples (at least in the legal sense or marriage*); I see it as a service, you get -as a married couple- benefits that make sense both ideologically and for practical purposes.
as societies and reasonings change, so should laws and in the same way that we consider a single parent or a "freely united" couple as acceptable basis for a family, and childless married couples as an appropriate lifestyle, so should gay couples be allowed to marry and start families, their right to do it should be championed despite the objections of religious bigots
*this is an odd confusion I see whenever gay marriage is debated, if marriage started as a solely religious concept (which is quite likely) it has permeated society in its entirety, and with the apparition of a secular authority, the need for a secular form of this institution becomes obvious; once this is established there is no room for any sort or religious ideal in it as far as the government is concerned