Gay Marriage

[Andy 60]

Today 'Civil Partnerships' became legal in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm

What do you make of it all?

Personally, I'm for anything that gives anyone equality, and this new law will enable same-sex couples to have similar rights to straight married couples. All in all, a good move, I say.

[Mara 29]

Honestly? I'm against it.

[GI_Admiral 2]

I think its a good idea. It's not "marriage" so people cant say its breaking tradition, but it has the same rights.

Edited December 5, 2005 by GI_Admiral

[Mara 29]

If it's not marriage, then how can it have the same rights? It's either all or nothing.

[GI_Admiral 2]

What's your definition of marriage?

[Alexander 0]

Union of two consenting adults.

[GI_Admiral 2]

Exactly! They should have the same governmental rights as a marriage. It should be a marriage in all but name

[Uncle Du 22]

I don't know why gay people are all about marriage any way, STAY SINGLE!!

j/k, I like being married.

[Alexander 0]

Exactly! They should have the same governmental rights as a marriage. It should be a marriage in all but name

Seperate is not equal.

[GI_Admiral 2]

Theres no way you're going to get a "gay marriage' title past the bible belt

[Alexander 0]

Time for an amputation of the waist down. Besides, it wouldn't be called 'gay marriage' it'd be called 'marriage.' Calling it 'gay marriage' still falls under seperate is not equal.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Alexander

[Mara 29]

Exactly! They should have the same governmental rights as a marriage. It should be a marriage in all but name

If it's not marriage in name, then it's not marriage, is it?

Marriage: a union made under God between a man and a woman.

[Alexander 0]

Except society does not define it like that. Currently marriage is the LEGAL union between a man and woman. To be considered married you need a legal license. Being married under God is not recognized as a license of marriage.

[Princess 35]

Honestly? I'm against it.

So you don't believe that someone who has been in a faithful loving long term relationship should have the right to make end of life decisions for his or her partner? To be allowed the same tax breaks? To be allowed survivor benefits? All because their biochemistry tells them to love someone of the same gender? Gimme a break

[GI_Admiral 2]

You're right.

It should just be under marriage.

I'm all for it. Realistically though, the best one can hope for is "Civil Union"

[Chickenman 9]

I used to think they should be allowed civil unions, but not the title of marriage, because I've always thought of marriage as a sacred thing between a man and a woman.

But lately, I've realized, that I don't think gender matters anymore.

Yay for them in the UK.

[Tsl 7]

Marriage, by definition, is a legal union of two people. Legal is the key word. Throw aside all the religious aspects and what you have is a financial contract between two people entitling them to one another's belongings, money, tax breaks, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a girl. Of course I love the idea of love and romance and the white dress and the rings and all that, but I'm just breaking it down to the basic legal definition of marriage. Because, honestly, any two people could have a ceremony and be "married" without enjoying the legal benefits.

Anyways, now that we have the legal definition of marriage....why the heck can't anybody be married? Why can't two people enter into a legal contract to share finances? That's rediculous. And it's also discrimination. If a buisness refused to grant a contract to somebody because they were black, female, hispanic, ugly, whatever, everybody would be up in arms. But because we're talking about gay people, it's wrong?

Ok, I know what the real problem is. It's not the legal union. It's the man on man love. See, woman on woman love is okay, because men find that sexy. It's just man on man love, but that's sort of another rant for another day. Anyways, do people think that by not allowing marriage that these "unnatural" love makings will no longer take place? Yeah...right.

So then we have the Civil Union, which is separate but equal. And I believe the use of that phrase says it all. (But it's better than nothing.)

[Mara 29]

Honestly? I'm against it.

So you don't believe that someone who has been in a faithful loving long term relationship should have the right to make end of life decisions for his or her partner? To be allowed the same tax breaks? To be allowed survivor benefits? All because their biochemistry tells them to love someone of the same gender? Gimme a break

No, I don't. It's against my beliefs. Marriage was never intended to be that way.

[Chickenman 9]

So how was it intended, Mara?

You're saying marriage was never supposed to have anything to do with tax breaks, and benefits and such. Guess what, back when marriage started, it wasn't about love. It was about the money and power. It wasn't until relativly recently that people started marrying out of love.

What is it about your beliefs that won't tolerate two people who love each other to not be able to spend the rest of their lives together?

Edited December 5, 2005 by Chickenman

[Tsl 7]

But, if you'd read my post at all, this is a situation that is separate from religion. It has nothing to do with it, in fact.

Christians should have no opinion on this....and I say this as a Christian myself. This has nothing to do with our faith. This isn't gay people demanding to be married in churches. The justice of the peace should not be governed by the churches, nor should the states.

This is an issue of legal contracts, nothing more.

[Mara 29]

If it's only a legal matter, it's not marriage.

It'd be like a CEO and his accountant. That's a business relationship.

Or the contract/will between heirs and some family member who died.

Are you saying that gay people are only in it for the money? The legalese? No, you're comparing it to heterosexual marriage. Even though you're saying it's not marriage.

And this has everything to do with faith, no matter what you say.

[Brumak 2]

What about the lesbians and gays that don't believe in the same faith in you?

I'm pretty sure to those couples that don't have a particular religion or faith, that that faith does not matter...

[Princess 35]

Really? What about arranged marriages where it was nothing about love and faith but everything about strengthening bonds between the upper escheclon of society? Those people weren't in it for love or their religious beliefs, it was all about power. They may have vowed before God to be faithful but many were anything but. I see no reason why homosexuals should ot be allowed the same legal rights as heterosexuals. As we learned before, separate but equal is never the same

[Tsl 7]

If it's only a legal matter, it's not marriage.

It'd be like a CEO and his accountant. That's a business relationship.

Or the contract/will between heirs and some family member who died.

Are you saying that gay people are only in it for the money? The legalese? No, you're comparing it to heterosexual marriage. Even though you're saying it's not marriage.

And this has everything to do with faith, no matter what you say.

That's the point of marriage, Mara. Why else do people go pay for a marriage license? Why don't they just go have their preacher marry them and forget all the fees? It would be a marriage in the sight of God, but it would not be recognised by the state. That's why.

It is a legal matter. It is a buisness relationship, yes! Exactly. Gay people can and do have marriage ceremonies about love and family and friends just like everybody else, but they are not recognised by the state as a legal contract!

Your argument means that not only are gays to be barred from marriage, but also athiests, agnostics, Hindus, Bhuddists, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who does not share your very narrow view of righteousness.

Also, Prin is completely right. Go do some research about the practices of marriage in the days of Mary and Joseph.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Tsl

[GI_Admiral 2]

I think this is what it's coming down to.

Are you saying that gay people are only in it for the money? The legalese? No, you're comparing it to heterosexual marriage.

Perhaps unconciously, you are inheirently splitting homosexuals and heterosexuals up. You are quetsioning if the gay people are only in it for the money. THEN you say that we're comparing it to heterosexual people.

The fact of the matter is, in our society it doesn't matter. The two people might be totally in love, it won't matter if they're gay or straight. The two people might be doing it to get tax breaks or what not, that's not specific to being homosexual or heterosexual. that's specific to HUMANS IN GENERAL.

Furthermore to cement the idea that marriages are business related. You can get married without going to a church.

Just stop by a judge and get it signed. No fancy words, no reception, no marches and music, just go to him, get it signed, you're married in the eyes of the state.

And to clarify:

I do agree faith has a lot to do with why we won't have "marriages" spread to male and male/ female and female. Most of America is using their faith to guide them in what is right. So no senator will vote for a bill/amendment that will go against what his people this is "right". THAT is where faith plays a role.