Gay Marriage

Well here is another controversial topic.

I personally think that anybody who loves another human being and wants to be with them has that right. So I'm for it, although I dont think it needs to be made such a big deal and made a law/or not in all of the states. Put aside any religious feelings on this issue you have (I'm not going to debate those at this time). I think that telling people what to do (ie. who they can marry) is unconstitional. This is supposed to be the country by the people for the people we are supposed to have civil liberties to the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If that happiness comes from marrying a person of the same sex who cares, who are we to judge and declare it unconstitional.

I don't think you're really interested in other people's opinion.

"tcatartist, post: 11889" said:

I don't think you're really interested in other people's opinion.

Now kids, play nice ;)

As for the subject in hand, I am not a religious person at all and don't believe in god. However the sanctity of marriage is a ritual dreamt up by the people who worship god and wrote the bible. They made the rules, so folks should abide by them. Simple as that.

Now if some filthy rich dude wants to hook up with me (figuratively speaking of course) and sign a contract that allows me to take half his money should we split I have no objections to that. But for gay guys and women to go the full hog and make an huge deal out of it is wrong imo. Now a tastful service or just a party is fine. However I don't believe in gay couples having civil partnerships in churches. I think it's hypocritical since the rules of marriage state that it is a partnership between a man and a women. If you can't follow the rules, then simply don't play that game (in this case the catholic game they named marriage)

But then this is coming from a guy who does not believe in marriage full stop :) Unless the woman is rich of course ;)

"tcatartist, post: 11889" said:

I don't think you're really interested in other people's opinion.

Whoah whats that all about. I am interested. I read your last post on this and didnt think I needed to respond to it as it was about the country being founded based on Christian values. I can respond to that if you want me too.


Neil I do agree that the Catholics invented marriage and its there own little club. But I think that you should not have to belong to that club to make your relationship official (which is what a marriage is basically saying were going steady for life). It also shouldn't be made a big deal in order for you to make that relationship official if that is what you wish (if you see that as proper or whatnot)
As for your rules, your saying that people that arent catholic shouldnt abide by these rules that are now rooted in society. Thus any non catholic shouldnt get married. Correct me if I'm wrong, but then that means that if your gay or non catholic then you shouldnt get married, but not catholics get married all of the time.

"matt, post: 11968" said:

As for your rules, your saying that people that arent catholic shouldnt abide by these rules that are now rooted in society. Thus any non catholic shouldnt get married. Correct me if I'm wrong, but then that means that if your gay or non catholic then you shouldnt get married, but not catholics get married all of the time.

Exactly. If your not religious then your being hypercritical and you obviously do not respect the religion. All faiths agree on one thing, marriage is between a man and a women. Simple as that.

Now I'm not against same sex couples having the same rights, but then this can be done with a certificate or contract. I mean if I were a satanist I'm not exactly gonna throw parties in a church am I?

I think it's disrespectful of that faith to start making your own rules up. These rules have been around for thousands of years.

I am all for gay marriage. I am bisexual so I understand.

Im a married straight guy and im all for gay marrigage. I dont care if two people love each other then there is NO PROBLEM. What is the problem is religon plain and simple.

I don't think you can have this argument WITHOUT mentioning religion. Personally, I don't think it's anyone's business if two men or two women want to marry each other.

"kylefromdirtnapp, post: 18049" said:

I don't think you can have this argument WITHOUT mentioning religion. Personally, I don't think it's anyone's business if two men or two women want to marry each other.

Religion plays a big part into what people think about it. I for one am against it but it all goes back to religion. I dont think marriage should happen between two people of the same sex however some sort of civil partnership, something recognized by the government so couples should receive benefits is ok with me.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman howver something like civil partnership should describe same sex union

I'm all for gay marriage. As has been mentioned in this thread, if two consenting adults love eachother, I don't see a problem with them wanting to get a piece of paper saying they're married.

In regards to the religious nature of marriage, there was an interesting article in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide a while back, which you may or may not disagree with (thought provoking either way though, IMO). Not sure how much I'm allowed to quote from it (let me know if this is too much - the full article is much longer), so I'll just put in the bits on Roman and Pagan practice:

'Traditional Marriage: A Secular Affair?', Patricia Nell Warren, The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 1st May 2005, Volume 12; Issue 3 said:

So far our religious right has been pretty successful in their propaganda. They blur the line between civil marriage and a whole array of church nuptials, trying to sell the idea that it's all one generic type of "traditional marriage" that must be "protected" from those evil homosexuals. And they lie baldly about the real history of marriage in the Christian West. The very people who go around putting up the Ten Commandments in schools and courtrooms have no qualms about breaking the Ninth Commandment when they tell us that "marriage has always been sacred."

But the fact is, word "marriage" doesn't refer to anything sacred or religious. Its root is a Latin word referring to civil authority in ancient Rome. The Roman Republic began in the 4th century BCE with a state religion that required everybody to worship Jupiter and other state gods. The emperor, Jupiter's "divine representative on Earth," was the high priest as well, and had the power to proclaim laws by personal edict. Even though this religion had a morality code, it was somewhat tolerant and didn't intrude directly into family affairs. The legal roots of marriage were older and deeper than the Empire. Written Roman family law drew its life from Rome's earlier history as a republic--from the civitas, or civil government of Rome itself, and one's citizenship in that already ancient city-state. Civitas related to the rights of private free individuals and any legal proceedings concerning these rights.

Under Roman law, civil power rested with the husband. Latin for husband was maritus, from the god Mars, state patron of masculinity. For many centuries the male head of a family had complete legal authority over his wife, daughters, slaves, and other dependents. It was his job to police morality within the family: he could make divorce happen, even kill his wife or daughters if he caught them in adultery. Latin maritare means "to wed, marry, give in marriage." When a girl "married," it meant she was handed over by her father or guardian to the legal custody of the maritus, namely her bridegroom. Most marriages were arranged; the hope was that couples would grow into affection and concord with time. Meanwhile, a solid marriage also protected property and lineage rights.

But even the stern patriarchal Romans recognized the pitfalls of making a marriage stick if a woman hated the choice of man her family made for her. So the Empire humanized marriage somewhat to allow for the girl's consent. Roman law stated explicitly: "It is not sex but consent and marital affection (maritalis affectio) that makes a marriage."

Wealthy Romans had the option of going through elaborate and expensive religious rituals with the state gods and goddesses in order to marry. But this was not mandatory. For most people, the wedding took place at home and included a family feast at which the couple joined hands and gave their consent before witnesses. There was a written contract dealing with dowry, property, etc., validated by consent between the new maritus and his mate. All legal issues around a marriage devolved from that consent.

According to gay historian John Boswell's groundbreaking research on marriage (Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, 1995), formal unions between two Roman men or two women also took place. Ancient Rome's best-known gay couple, Hadrian and Antinous, were never actually married. But history noted some same-sex unions by Elagabalus and other emperors. These rites were greeted with snickers by some conservative Romans, who thought the idea of two mariti tying the knot was a hilarious contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, same-sex unions were a feature of Roman life until 342 CE, when Emperor Constantius II outlawed them, reflecting the growing power of Christianity.

PAGAN EMPIRE TO CHRISTIAN EMPIRE

The Empire had already started to go Christian under the rule of Constantius' father, Constantine I (the Great), who was emperor from 312 to 337. From that point on, the early Church was capturing the Roman ruling class and taking control of that well-oiled state-religion machine. Jupiter and his ruler-priest were out; Jesus Christ and his ruler-priest, the Pope, were in. Churchmen wrenched the bronze doors from the pagan Senate's government building and installed them in Rome's first church basilica. With this symbolic act, much of Roman law and bureaucracy was rolled over to the new religion.

But Christian state religion was less tolerant than pagan state religion had been. The absolute authority of the maritus over his family vanished, to be replaced by absolute Church authority over its entire membership, complete with its own moral code. Severing their ties with Judaism, early theologians rejected the polygamy extolled in the Old Testament and adopted monogamy as their rule. They also grumbled about the marriage-related practices of the pagan Romans--from homosexuality, concubines, birth control, and abortion to mercy killings of deformed babies and permissiveness on sex with slaves. Initially, the early Christians allowed divorce in cases of adultery, but later they taught that only death or Church dispensation could end a marriage. By 389 CE, Ambrose of Milan was thundering, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder!"

However, on the civil front Christian marriage followed the same format as pagan Roman marriage. According to historian David G. Hunter, the early bishops acquired a quasi-civil standing in their communities, and some Christians had to get their bishop's approval to marry. But weddings still took place at home with the joining of hands and the feast. The dowry contract was read aloud and signed by witnesses.

Indeed, there really wasn't a Christian concept of marriage as a "legal" entity till the Middle Ages. By then, the Roman Church was putting less emphasis on Jesus' scriptural teachings and more on its own authority, and would proclaim Catholic dogma by papal edict. This trend was given a boost when the Charlemagne united most of western Europe and assumed the title of Holy Roman Emperor with papal blessing in the year 800. By the 12th century, the Church had yanked the marriage ceremony out of people's homes and required that it be done in a church. By the 13th century, the Pope had decreed marriage to be one of seven sacraments, so now it could only be dispensed by a priest. But theologians still recognized the old Roman principle that, to be valid, a marriage had to involve a contract and consent.

Surprisingly, some in the medieval Church apparently had no objections to another hold-over from Roman times. In his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, John Boswell produced some amazing church documents from Italy, Spain, and other countries that reveal pairs of men and women still establishing formal relationships involving mutual affectio. These appear to have been a sacramental rite; like heterosexual marriages, they took place in a church. Yet they also had a civil aspect, since the written ceremonies sometimes mentioned mutual ownership of property. (Perhaps this leniency on same-sex unions resulted from the Catholic priesthood's having become a magnet for closeted gay and bisexual men. In more recent centuries, as homophobia grew in Europe, these same-sex unions vanished.)

"MannysCollectibles, post: 18050" said:

Religion plays a big part into what people think about it. I for one am against it but it all goes back to religion. I dont think marriage should happen between two people of the same sex however some sort of civil partnership, something recognized by the government so couples should receive benefits is ok with me.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman howver something like civil partnership should describe same sex union

This is where I disagree with you. You think gays and lesbians only want to get married for benefits? I recently came out of the closet as a lesbian so I think I can give more of an opinion on this.

I am recently going through a messy divorce from my husband. Well that was a marriage between a man and a woman and look how that ended up. Perhaps many years ago the sacrament of marriage was taken more seriously but nowadays, it's a joke. Many people get married now because to impress their friends or they think that they really do love each other and take it for granted. But when the romance is over and it loses it's luster.."Hey! Let's get a divorce and marry someone else!" To me, it seems like dating with a ring on your finger.

I know a lot of married and divorced people. I've seen my brother in law get a divorce from his wife who was dying of cervical cancer because he wanted to be with his mistress. My little sister is another example. I can understand her first divorce because it was an abusive marriage like mine. But right now she is thinking of divorce because she is having a secret affair and her current husband seems boring compared to her boyfriend.

Now with gays and lesbians...I think they will take marriage more seriously because right now they can't have that and will work harder at it and cherish it much more. I have a gay friend and he lives in England and he is married to his lover. Over there gays and lesbians can get married and it's not called "a civil union" He has a husband.

Marriage is a union of two people in love unconditionally. It shouldn't matter if it's a man and a woman, two men or two women. It shouldn't be called a civil union. If it does, then all marriages in the U.S. should be called civil unions then.

It all boils down to the opinions of others when it comes to morality. Take for example prohibition. People (especially women) complained about the evils of alcohol and made it illegal. Years later it was repealed. Look how much violence happened because of someone's morals during that era.

I'm not saying you have to be for gay and lesbian marriage. In fact, you don't have to like us. You can't agree with everything in America. But you shouldn't stop something because it goes against your religion. Remember the separation of Church and State. You can't have church influence the government. If you do want the church to influence the government, then which one? There are thousands of different religions and everyone thinks their religion is the right one. I'm Roman Catholic. Should I think my religion is the right one? Should I think it is better than yours? See how you can't do that?

Chris here...

I'm totally in favour of gay marriage and always have been - to me if two people love each other and want to cement that love, then that should be the end of it. Yep, you can have a kind-of compromise civil partnership which essentially creates a legal bond between the two, but to be honest I would think the reason why the vast majority of homosexual lovers would want to get married would have little to do with such things, it would be (at least, one would hope it would be) primarily because they loved each other. :)

I understand the argument about the distinction between a "marriage" and a "civil partnership" being one based in religion, and I agree to an extent - but, I see athiests {sp?} getting married all the time, and that's not called a civil partnership, that's called a marriage! ;) If you want to think of marriage as a union based in religion I think that's a definite argument, but for me in that circumstance it would be better for two gay lovers who believe in God to get married, and two athiest hetrosexual lovers to enter into a civil partnership! :)

It's a bit of a minefield of a subject, but those above are my $0.02 on the issue! :)

Take care... :)

BWAHAHAHA! I couldn't resist! :evil:

I am against it however I wold not go out of my way to promote why i dont like it or why I am against it. If there were a bill or law to vote on this issue, truthfully I wouldnt vote. Its not my place to decide for somebody else what they want to do or not do. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, it is not unlawful and youre certainly not hurting anyone.

I never once said I do not like gays or lesbians, its their choice and should be respected as such. In the end regardless of sexual preference or beliefs we have one thing in common and that is that we are human and are equal. Its too bad that it is not recognized as such. My beliefs are different from others but my beliefs do not determine the way I should treat others or how others should live their life. If we all shared the same beliefs the world would be a boring place

My motto is: You only get one shot at this life, you might as well do whatever is that makes you happy so long as it does not hurt others.

With that being said, I am not against gay marriage, I honestly could care less. I am however, against two lesbian woman or two gay men raising a child. This is wrong, and I believe will have severe consequences on the child later on in life. If two people of the same sex wish to be together, so be it, but placing a child in that atmosphere and pretty much forcing them to accept it as right is wrong.

Lynxana i have a question. Are the couples in england both called husband (for 2 men) and wife (for 2 women). Im curious if there is another term for the other same sex significant other.

I know it seems stupid but just curious if they are I now pronounce you wife and wife.

"queen lynxana, post: 18559" said:

This is where I disagree with you. You think gays and lesbians only want to get married for benefits? I recently came out of the closet as a lesbian so I think I can give more of an opinion on this.

I am recently going through a messy divorce from my husband. Well that was a marriage between a man and a woman and look how that ended up. Perhaps many years ago the sacrament of marriage was taken more seriously but nowadays, it's a joke. Many people get married now because to impress their friends or they think that they really do love each other and take it for granted. But when the romance is over and it loses it's luster.."Hey! Let's get a divorce and marry someone else!" To me, it seems like dating with a ring on your finger.

I know a lot of married and divorced people. I've seen my brother in law get a divorce from his wife who was dying of cervical cancer because he wanted to be with his mistress. My little sister is another example. I can understand her first divorce because it was an abusive marriage like mine. But right now she is thinking of divorce because she is having a secret affair and her current husband seems boring compared to her boyfriend.

Now with gays and lesbians...I think they will take marriage more seriously because right now they can't have that and will work harder at it and cherish it much more. I have a gay friend and he lives in England and he is married to his lover. Over there gays and lesbians can get married and it's not called "a civil union" He has a husband.

Marriage is a union of two people in love unconditionally. It shouldn't matter if it's a man and a woman, two men or two women. It shouldn't be called a civil union. If it does, then all marriages in the U.S. should be called civil unions then.

It all boils down to the opinions of others when it comes to morality. Take for example prohibition. People (especially women) complained about the evils of alcohol and made it illegal. Years later it was repealed. Look how much violence happened because of someone's morals during that era.

I'm not saying you have to be for gay and lesbian marriage. In fact, you don't have to like us. You can't agree with everything in America. But you shouldn't stop something because it goes against your religion. Remember the separation of Church and State. You can't have church influence the government. If you do want the church to influence the government, then which one? There are thousands of different religions and everyone thinks their religion is the right one. I'm Roman Catholic. Should I think my religion is the right one? Should I think it is better than yours? See how you can't do that?

"matt, post: 18565" said:

Lynxana i have a question. Are the couples in england both called husband (for 2 men) and wife (for 2 women). Im curious if there is another term for the other same sex significant other.

I know it seems stupid but just curious if they are I now pronounce you wife and wife.

Well I asked my friend who lives in England about this. you see, I live in Allentown Pennsylvania, not England. Guess I was wrong about their marriages being called marriages. Technically it is called a "civil partnership" however it is classed as a true marriage. He told me he thinks (and he isn't 100% sure of this) You have to be together a certain amount of years before you can marry over the civil partnership.

Now I often wondered about the "both being called husband" and "both being called wife" I assume it would. When my friend got married, the person conducting the wedding said "I now pronounce you civil partners" When I do speak with him, he does refer to his lover as "my husband" and it doesn't matter who is the dominate one LOL normally the slang term for that is "the guy and the *****" rofl but they both refer to each other as "husband" As far as women, it's the "dom or butch" and the "fem" Personally, for example, if I was to get married to a woman, I would refer to her as my wife and I would want to be refered to as her wife.

Edit: whoa, I didn't know if you type the B word, it gets censored out. LOL

"He-Fan, post: 18560" said:

- but, I see athiests {sp?} getting married all the time, and that's not called a civil partnership, that's called a marriage! ;)

Heh - good point! 8)

I understand the argument about the distinction between a "marriage" and a "civil partnership" being one based in religion, and I agree to an extent...If you want to think of marriage as a union based in religion I think that's a definite argument

Although if the research in the article extract I posted earlier is accurate, 'marriage' has a much longer history as a secular union than it does as a religious one. Indeed, according to the article, marriages only took place in churches from the 12th century onwards, meaning there was at least 1600 years of marriages at home in a civil setting before that.

I see nothing wrong with Gay's getting married. Heck Let them suffer through it like everyone else.

"Davea2774, post: 18605" said:

I see nothing wrong with Gay's getting married. Heck Let them suffer through it like everyone else.

ROFLMAO!

I nearly choked on my coffee when I saw this.