Tell me what to think (the issue of gay marriages)

[Lorizael]

But in time, as the churches are filled with newer generations, they will come to accept the common belief in society that gays are people, too, and they will give up their outmoded ways. Things will never change, however, if someone doesn't make a change.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Suppose they are given the right to marry. Every single one of the churches will ask for the right not to marry gay people, because it violates their religion. So we will be back to square 1, no different from where we are now.

Absolute nonsense -- there are several churches that are extremely gay-friendly, and if given the legal right to marry gays, they certainly would.

I'm not saying all churches should be forced to marry gays, that's a strawman.

I am saying gays should be allowed to be legally married, should any specific church want to do it.

[Ben Kenobi]

DRoseDars:

"Marriage," as we understand this concept, it originated as a way of cementing a good relationship between two powers, be they kingdoms or influential families. It's a legal contract, a Human invention, not a Law of Nature or Commandment from God.

Then why do people get married in churches if the church has nothing to do with the institution of marriage here in the west?

For people who are religious, marriage is far more than a simple 'legal contract.' It is a promise not only to your partner, but to God as well, to live in a relationship that he has sanctioned beforehand. This is the problem with the concept of gay marriage if one defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Also, you can 'cement a good relationship' within the common law framework.

Do you understand the difference between forcing churches to marry gays and allowing churches to legally marry gays?

What if the church does not want to marry gay people? What happens then?

Lorizael:

But in time, as the churches are filled with newer generations, they will come to accept the common belief in society that gays are people, too, and they will give up their outmoded ways. Things will never change, however, if someone doesn't make a change.

Well, that argument cuts both ways. Younger people in Canada are generally more conservative. This goes for the US as well. Your window of opportunity is closing.

[Wtiberon]

I disagree with it.

Asher is, right me and my girlfriend accidently went to a Gay Southern Babtist Church (Of all Denominations) in Raliegh, NC while I was attending NC State. It seemed normal enough at first until she noticed that the choir was called Raleigh All Gay Choir...at first I didn't believe it until I started looking around and saw guys holding guys and girls holding girls. We decided to ride it out and finish the sermon but before the Paster started speaking two very gay ballerina dancers got on stage and started dancing with each other....we left immidiately.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Couple points:

I assume you are referring to Bishop Ingham.

It is correct to say that several churches do approve, but no one denomination does so on the whole, or even the majority.

What you have is a few dissident churches, ostracised within their individual denominations.

Again, I ask, what happens if a gay person is refused to be married by a particular church if they are given the legal right to be married? Would the church have to accomodate the marriage?

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Again, I ask, what happens if a gay person is refused to be married by a particular church if they are given the legal right to be married? Would the church have to accomodate the marriage?

Why would they, if it's a private institution?

Churches have a right to be ignorant, backwards, and generally offensive -- they've been doing it for as long as they've been around, and they've perfected it.

If some churches refuse to marry a gay couple, the gay couple probably doesn't want anything to do with that church anyway and will find one who accepts them as they are and not as what other people want of them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Glad to hear Asher.

What's the problem with common-law status here in Canada?

[Drake Tungsten]

Domestic partnerships -

Gay marriage -

[DRoseDARs]

Obi:
My mom and stepdad searched for six weeks for someone to marry them (legally) who'd be willing to leave out the religious (specifically, Christian) aspects of the ceremony. They finally just went with someone at the Washoe County Courthouse. Notice that it isn't a church.

Drake:
EDIT: Retracted.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Domestic partnerships -

Gay marriage -

Why maintain the distinction? Because marriage is supposedly "religious"? I have no problem with marriage being considered a sacrament, but it should then have absolutely no civic implications -- much like baptism. That means that, under your idea, any couple joined in a civil ceremony, whether straight or gay, should be considered a domestic partnership, not a marriage; and that any legal or other advantages that accrue to married couples accrue as well to domestic partners. Do that, and the churches can have marriage all to themselves.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake:
Eff you.

Why? I support equal rights for gay couples; I just don't want to change the meaning of the term "marriage" when much of society is opposed to that change.

I have no problem with marriage being considered a sacrament, but it should then have absolutely no civic implications -- much like baptism. That means that, under your idea, any couple joined in a civil ceremony, whether straight or gay, should be considered a domestic partnership, not a marriage; and that any legal or other advantages that accrue to married couples accrue as well to domestic partners. Do that, and the churches can have marriage all to themselves.

Sounds good to me.

[cinch]

to Rufus.

I think semantics has overtaken an argument yet again. It seems to be all about how one defines 'marriage'.

But I like what Rufus said: Make everything a domestic partnership, with equal rights, and let the churches keep the word 'marriage'.

[DRoseDARs]

Drake, the religious are the ones who've changed "marriage." It's a legal contract that they've attached their meanings to.

I retract my "eff you" but I still disagree with you.



It's getting late and I have class in 8 hours. G'nite all.

[Frogman]

Marriage is a tradition common to many cultures and many religions. What we are talking about is making gay marriage recognized by the government and employers with regard to benefits, taxes and other secular concerns.

Many view marriage as a sacrament or seek the blessings of the church on their marriage. Religious leaders are given the authority to perform this legal act/cerimony in addition to others, like a justice of the peace or the captain of a ship but this is a legal cerimony with legal consequences. Churches and pastors can refuse any couple seeking marriage in their church and often do. Catholics have a rigorous councilling process and many priests will not marry mixes faith couples.

Legalizing and recognizing same sex marriage will not force churches to bend their rules, but certainly some will change to accept it. Gay couples always have secular options if religious ones are not available, but I expect more churches will be performing these marriages.

[red_jon]

OK, I'll bite.

Some may find it impossible to believe, but there ARE gay-friendly churches, which are perectly normal (note 'gay friendly' does not equal 'gay') and would be perfectly willing to marry same-sex couples were they given the legal right to.

Other countries (such as Holland) have had same-sex marraiges for a while now, with no negative effect.

Besides, why are people assuming every marraige is Christian?