Gay Marriage

[U-238]

I agree with this, but have been called homophobic so many times that I have stopped saying it. I just have a problem in having the government involved in church is a slippery slope to start on. Saying this I don't disagree with gay marriage per se, just that the government shouldn't interfere with the church/what ever religious institution. But I know how you guys feel about religion sooo...

The government absolutely should not be involved in religion. That is why this ruling was so good.

If two people want to get married, they should be able to. It is a union with many different aspects that change your rights, tax brackets, etc. Who is anyone to say that two people can't enter into this agreement because of their plumbing? Not allowing two people to get married because of what the bible says is allowing religion into law. By saying anyone can get married, that is taking religion out of it.

Gay people are not going to walk into a super-religious church and demand the church marry them. The church would be well within their rights to refuse. The pastor that married my wife and I said that she would refuse to marry couples she thought "wouldn't work." So anti-gay churches need not be involved. Gays can go to the city clerk, or they get a more open minister, or they get someone licensed to perform marriages to marry them. You can get a license to marry people through an online course. . . .

The fact is, this is not the government stepping into a church. This is the government saying that marriage is a union between two people. They are not re-writing the bible.

This ruling does not affect churches in any way, except for perhaps pissing them off that their definition of marriage can no longer be forced on other people.

[LukeTom]

I agree with this, but have been called homophobic so many times that I have stopped saying it. I just have a problem in having the government involved in church is a slippery slope to start on. Saying this I don't disagree with gay marriage per se, just that the government shouldn't interfere with the church/what ever religious institution. But I know how you guys feel about religion sooo...

The government absolutely should not be involved in religion. That is why this ruling was so good.

If two people want to get married, they should be able to. It is a union with many different aspects that change your rights, tax brackets, etc. Who is anyone to say that two people can't enter into this agreement because of their plumbing? Not allowing two people to get married because of what the bible says is allowing religion into law. By saying anyone can get married, that is taking religion out of it.

Gay people are not going to walk into a super-religious church and demand the church marry them. The church would be well within their rights to refuse. The pastor that married my wife and I said that she would refuse to marry couples she thought "wouldn't work." So anti-gay churches need not be involved. Gays can go to the city clerk, or they get a more open minister, or they get someone licensed to perform marriages to marry them. You can get a license to marry people through an online course. . . .

The fact is, this is not the government stepping into a church. This is the government saying that marriage is a union between two people. They are not re-writing the bible.

This ruling does not affect churches in any way, except for perhaps pissing them off that their definition of marriage can no longer be forced on other people.

It comes down to semantics, some people see 'marriage' as having innately religious connotations. Perhaps one of the easier ways of doing it would to simply make civil-partnerships and marriages have the same legal equal footing. Some people say marriage is religious, some say it is legal. Let religion decide what they want to do.

[nwcstn]

The way I see it the government never should have gotten involved with marriage from the beginning. Government involvement is what fucjed up marriage. This whole debate wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government giving married couples benefits.

[CARROTFVCKER]

The way I see it the government never should have gotten involved with marriage from the beginning. Government involvement is what fucjed up marriage. This whole debate wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government giving married couples benefits.

this deserves a rainbow box!!!

[dude...]

back in the early days of the modern state when they were making rules and laws and such, when religion was almost ubiquitous, it heavily influenced values and the creation of rules and regulations under which the state operated. since then, thankfully the church and government are more separate (maybe not in parts of the US which can be really backwards about this stuff in some states, which is why this bill passing is so important).

i think its short sighted to say the government fucked up marriage, just because marriage as a concept has morphed considerably over the last few hundred years.


if your religion doesnt want to acknowledge same sex marriage, then thats an issue for that institution to decide on (i think religion sucks anyway), but its not fair that under the modern state which governs people of all faiths and beliefs, that some people have lesser rights than other citizens when it comes to forming romantic unions/partnerships.


its super annoying how some of the people opposing gay marriage are now acting like they are being marginalised and being hard done to, while LGTBQ+ people have had to put up with that shit their whole lives.
there are already plenty of loving gay couples out there getting on with their lives with their families exactly as heterosexual people do, meanwhile having no effect on those who speak out against them. yet because of their sexuality, for years their union has been perceived as less legitimate by the state simply due to their gender.

the whole issue is about equality for everyone, no matter who they love. in the future we will look back shamefully at the bigotry which permeated our society for so long, in the same way we look back at racial segregation 50-60 years prior


also, for the australian mandem, tony abbot is a total fuckwit and i cant wait til hes out of office

[U-238]

It comes down to semantics, some people see 'marriage' as having innately religious connotations. Perhaps one of the easier ways of doing it would to simply make civil-partnerships and marriages have the same legal equal footing. Some people say marriage is religious, some say it is legal. Let religion decide what they want to do.

I bolded your text that says "some people." The views of "some people" based on what is in a religious book absolutely should not influence what other people can do if it does not harm anyone. And spare me the drivel about gays undermining the sanctity of marriage in the US. I think the 40%+ divorce/remarry rate, which is a much greater fucking sin and and is mentioned about a million more fucking times in the bible than gay marriage, is a little bit  more of an issue to Americas moral code.

I also bolded "let religion decide what they want to do." This is because religion can still decide what they want to do. A devout catholic male does not have to marry another dude. An ultra-conservative christian church does not have to marry two girls.

But why should they have any say whatsoever if people of a different religion (or lack there of) decide marriage is a union between two people that wish to express their love and devotion towards one another INDEPENDENT of gender? They shouldn't, no more than a Muslim should be forced to abide by Christian religious values.

[Hank Chinaski]

Wasn't LukeTom the one moaning about his family having to pay a couple grand on their million dollar home, willing to disregard the situation of his fellow citizens as long as he was doing ok?  No surprises here I guess.

[ginger]

Tory fucker, that's him.

To cut a long story short, some people have fucking retarded views on the world and nothing will change that. Just do what is right by human standards and let the mouth breathers continue talking to their imaginary friends. They'll all be dead soon.

[LukeTom]

All I have been saying is an easier way of doing this would be awarding exactly the same rights etc to homosexual couples if they were in a civil partnership. I don't see why labelling it with 'marriage' is such a big deal for people when it just creates tension with all the religious folk. I am only playing devils advocate here, i don't see why marriage should still be sacred.

[Cole]

Because of equality, fuck face. It's like saying "hey guys, you can come to our schools, and businesses and even use our public transit! Buuuuuuuut, you'll need to use different bathrooms and water fountains and also be sat in a different area from the straight people".

It's a big deal because gay people are normal. Why should they settle for a "civil union" when they have the same rights and freedoms as straight people in the same country as them?

If you're genuinely trying to play the devils advocate, you super suck at it. Go cry in your mansion.

[LukeTom]

Because of equality, fuck face. It's like saying "hey guys, you can come to our schools, and businesses and even use our public transit! Buuuuuuuut, you'll need to use different bathrooms and water fountains and also be sat in a different area from the straight people".

No, its nothing like that. Its like saying; we recognise the history of marriage that it has always been between two people of opposite sexes. Sooooo instead of antagonise a large amount of the population we will give you exactly the same thing, but call it a union instead of a marriage because of the history etc. of that word. If its just the name then why does it matter so much to people?

[U-238]

Because of equality, fuck face. It's like saying "hey guys, you can come to our schools, and businesses and even use our public transit! Buuuuuuuut, you'll need to use different bathrooms and water fountains and also be sat in a different area from the straight people".

No, its nothing like that. Its like saying; we recognise the history of marriage that it has always been between two people of opposite sexes. Sooooo instead of antagonise a large amount of the population we will give you exactly the same thing, but call it a union instead of a marriage because of the history etc. of that word. If its just the name then why does it matter so much to people?

If it is only a word, why don't the religious folk just go back to calling it בָּעַל (baal), the Hebrew word for marriage? What's the big deal? Why does it matter, if it's only a word? Or are there perhaps connotations to the word marriage, and no matter how equal a civil union is, people still wouldn't hold it in as high regard as marriage?

Also, the history of marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. Often, it was (and still is some places) between a man and a few women.

Calling a gay marriage a civil union to avoid pissing off religious people means the views and beliefs of those religious people outweigh the views and beliefs of other people. That isn't right.

[LukeTom]

Perhaps they should go back to using the Hebrew word, and it would not surprise me if they did. I don't know if people would not hold it in such high regard as marriage, it comes down to societies view on the whole thing. People who support it would hold it in high regard, and those who don't would not. I think in time when it had been integrated it would be held in high regard.

In the same vein you could say that you could say that the views of the religious people are being outweighed by the homosexuals and that "isn't right"? I just think it would silence allot of people if they had a referendum such as in Ireland, it would truly silence the critics, and would be a better way than simply the government intervening in religion which was my problem with it in the first place. I don't care if two people of the same sex can get married or not, I just think the process which was taken seemed suspect.

[U-238]

What isn't right is when a group decides they can deny people one of the most meaningful events of their lives because they happen to be the same gender.

The views of people should not matter at all when they infringe on the lives of people that have nothing to do with their views.

Let us say, as an example, that you and your friends think it is morally wrong to eat shellfish because shellfish are stated as unclean in your your particular religious text. You see a man eating shellfish. You demand he stop eating shellfish because it is not in line with your religious belief on morally acceptable food items.

Is this acceptable behavior on your part? Should the man stop eating shellfish?

[Prodigal Son]

Just as a devils advocate, not furthering the population could've been a biblical reason. Definitely wasn't a disease issue.