Homosexuality: religous issue? moral issue? legal issue? or civil rights issue? (church, atheist)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

If marriage is a religious practice, then why can ship's captains and justices of the peace marry people? Sorry, I won't pray for you because I believe prayer is a pointless exercise in futility.

I don't understand why the heterosexual community would think that allowing gays to marry would destroy their marriages.

We've had same sex marriage here since 2005... The biggest change I see here is the there is no more squabbling about this issue. Rather than damaging families it has created countless new loving families for kids who would otherwise still be unwanted and in the care of the state....Nothing but good has come SSM as far as I can see.

[javachip]

not unless there will be no moral issues vs. religion vs. political issues...same sex marriage won't prosper...especially in asian countries! (good luck with that man..)

i think gays and lesbian couples would only want to have legal rights for security reasons...but somehow,marriage won't answer security for long term relaionship, ( coz if it does, why divorce is so rampant..) it's still how the couple handles it --whether homos or heteros. on the other hand, religions would need to understand gays and lesbians need civil rights, common! they are also humans who needs acceptance and a place in this world.

[Brie85]

Originally Posted by FreeThinkerInTex

The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."

If marriage was a religious term then the state would not be issuing marriage licenses. Nonreligous opposite-sex couples are married by the state all the time. There are two aspects of marriage that you are merging - civil marriage through the government and religious marriage through a particularly faith. Same-sex couples are asking for the same rights to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples currently enjoy. Religious marriage would continue to be determined by the requirements of each particular faith.

It has been established that "separate but equal" does not work. Requiring same sex couples to use a separate term for their marriages implies that their commitment to one another is somehow inferior to that of opposite sex couples. I am married and my opposite-sex marriage is not superior to someone else's same-sex marriage.

[Thomas R.]

Well I considered this for a time, but eventually rejected it.

It is different because men are different from women. To say that the union of two men is the same as the union of two women is the same as an opposite-sexed union at least implies some sort of uniformity. That uniformity I do not think exists. Possibly some homosexuals have more "masculine brains" while others have more "feminine brains" but it's still a union of sames. The equation is different.

Now I think it is tempting to throw logic and common-sense out the window in order to make someone feel better. I'm just not convinced it works in the case of something this obvious. Being homosexual is not going to become like heterosexual just by waving a magical government wand. Being me, a disabled dwarfish bisexual celibate, is not going to become "the same as" an average height married heterosexual by some government decree. You could let me marry both a man and woman than require pick-up basketball games to include me, but it's not going to make a difference. I am not "Virtually Normal", I'm abnormal and that's just the way it is. I'm good with that, more or less, at this point in my life.

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by FreeThinkerInTex

The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."

So what if marriage is a religious term? That is pretty much a non-argument. Or are you saying that gays cannot be religious? What if one's religion allows or even condones same sex marriage?

I suppose you think that "religion" only covers narrow minded Biblical based beliefs such as your own? Buddhism and Paganism do not condemn same sex marriages and last time I checked they were religions. It is also rather easy to make up a religion with any beliefs and tenants one wishes. After all, the authors of your New Testament did just that..

[hljc]

Homosexual is a spiritual issue when interacting with people . Transferrence of spirits of this world make working with people of homosexual presuasion difficult to interact with Christains who avoid the spirits that builds homosexual character, but christians are called to love all people, just avoid all spirits. With the injustice of homophobia the issue has become a apostolic issue were these indiffrences inhibit the move of The Lord God to help save more people. People have to know that Jesus loves them very much, but he waits for them to come to him. Jesus will not go a override his childrens tolarances. Jesus said ``If any has ought against his neighbour, forgive them and Jesus will forgive your sin and the people you are praying for.``

[Eresh]

I view it as a civil rights issue. In this country (U.S.), marriage is basically just a legal contract that gives people the right to things such as filing joint tax returns, collecting social security benefits upon one's death, and the ability to include both on a health insurance policy. I see no logical reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed this right.

[PatsCats]

Originally Posted by Brie85

If marriage was a religious term then the state would not be issuing marriage licenses. Nonreligous opposite-sex couples are married by the state all the time. There are two aspects of marriage that you are merging - civil marriage through the government and religious marriage through a particularly faith. Same-sex couples are asking for the same rights to civil marriage as opposite-sex couples currently enjoy. Religious marriage would continue to be determined by the requirements of each particular faith.

It has been established that "separate but equal" does not work. Requiring same sex couples to use a separate term for their marriages implies that their commitment to one another is somehow inferior to that of opposite sex couples. I am married and my opposite-sex marriage is not superior to someone else's same-sex marriage.

Bravo.

I believe the word "marriage" has become a generic term for two people who have gone through the legal process determined by their state.

I say I am "married," but in our religion, the word is Handfasted. The state recognizes it because the proper legal forms were filed. They do not ask if there is any religious affiliation, they just ask if the officiant is registered with the state.

All "marriages" are civil unions. If a denomination does not believe in same-sex marriage, then by all means, they should not be asked to perform same-sex marriages. Many denominations are beginning to performing same-sex marriages, and perhaps same-sex couples will begin moving out of their "home churches" where they have felt cast out, and move into churches that are more accepting and where they can have (until it is accepted in their state) a ceremony of their liking at any time.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by hortysir

Yes.
And alot of gays feel the same way.
They know the definition and origin of the word 'marriage', and would be happy with "Civil Union" or "Partnership" with all the same rights and benefits.
You just don't get to hear their opinions. They're not as controversial and newsworthy.

A co-manager of mine's favorite phrase is, "You can't put an eraser on a fork and call it a pencil".
He and his partner are very close friends of our's

Personally I could care less if it's called marriage or whatever. My partner and I have no desire to put on tuxes and flush money down a huge wedding drain. We just want the rights. Although I do know gay couples who were into the whole ceremony thing - just sayin' it's not our thing.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Well I considered this for a time, but eventually rejected it.

It is different because men are different from women. To say that the union of two men is the same as the union of two women is the same as an opposite-sexed union at least implies some sort of uniformity. That uniformity I do not think exists. Possibly some homosexuals have more "masculine brains" while others have more "feminine brains" but it's still a union of sames. The equation is different.

Now I think it is tempting to throw logic and common-sense out the window in order to make someone feel better. I'm just not convinced it works in the case of something this obvious. Being homosexual is not going to become like heterosexual just by waving a magical government wand. Being me, a disabled dwarfish bisexual celibate, is not going to become "the same as" an average height married heterosexual by some government decree. You could let me marry both a man and woman than require pick-up basketball games to include me, but it's not going to make a difference. I am not "Virtually Normal", I'm abnormal and that's just the way it is. I'm good with that, more or less, at this point in my life.

Well, I kinda hate to tell you this, but......I am a white male Homo Sapien, my wife is a white female homo sapien, both of us are homo sapien, with respect to gender, other than that, we are the same. This whole sameness argument has been used to keep whites from marrying black or native american. The sameness you speak of is an illusion, we are all human beings, that is the sameness. We each have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there was never a stipulation on how that happiness should be found.