What are your thoughts on GAY marriage??

Absolutely all for it. They deserve the same rights as everyone else!

---

Posted by medic6809

I learned to ALWAYS plead the 5th when this question comes up

---

Me too!

---

Posted by portjeffbride

I'm all for it.

I think marriage is NOT always a sacred religous right.... If it WERE, I'd insist virtually ALL celebrity 'marriages' be dissolved instantly....

Marriage is a free and loose term when used for heterosexuals. Sure Liz taylor can get married a gigillion times.... Sure, why not Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Britney??!!

People can get married naked at a hedonism resort (not very sacred in my opinion ) or in a drive-thru window in vegas in a limo driven by an elvis impersonator.

All the sudden, marriage becomes sacred when we turn to gays? Nope, they're just not morally correct enough to live and love together as a permanent unit... but drug addicts, knocked-up teens who aren't old enough to vote, disfunctional celebrities somehow are.....

it's hypercritical. IMO, let gays have the same highs and lows in life as everyone else!

---

---

Posted by Aug07OFCbride

I used to think that everyone should be able to get married, until i understood that, biblically, marriage was instituted by God as a union between a man and a woman that represents the relationship of Christ to the church. So thats where I stand on this topic. Think what you will from that but in NO way do i believe that gay people are lesser individuals!!...and some ppl wont get that or may flame. Just sharing my views like the rest.

---

My views, except since I am Jewish I would substitute church with old testament. I believe gays should be treated with equality and understanding, should be able to have civil unions and get benefits and rights of survivorship non-will death situations. However, I believe marriage was defined in the bible as a union between a man and a woman. JMO though.

---

Posted by Mich0621

---

Posted by Aug07OFCbride

I used to think that everyone should be able to get married, until i understood that, biblically, marriage was instituted by God as a union between a man and a woman that represents the relationship of Christ to the church. So thats where I stand on this topic. Think what you will from that but in NO way do i believe that gay people are lesser individuals!!...and some ppl wont get that or may flame. Just sharing my views like the rest.

---

My views, except since I am Jewish I would substitute church with old testament. I believe gays should be treated with equality and understanding, should be able to have civil unions and get benefits and rights of survivorship non-will death situations. However, I believe marriage was defined in the bible as a union between a man and a woman. JMO though.

---

Can't be friends with you anymore

I am for it.

I dont believe in using religion as a backdrop and as a template for passing laws in this country. I dont like the ideas of mixing politics with religions and never did. Just b/c religion and society constructed and developed a system that says, a man and a women is the 'norm' in a comitted marriage, really doesnt mean that it's valid or right.

---

Posted by donegal419

I believe that they should have the same rights as married couples have (like benefits, rights to visit etc. in a hsopital, filing taxes, etc.)

however, i do not believe in gay marriage. the word marriage insinuates MAN and WOMAN and that definition has been that way for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I would however support some sort of civil union legislation, but not marriage.

---

I have to agree with this. I have numerous gay relatives and doesnt bug me either way; most of them have been togetehr longer than the straight couples I know. I am all for making them equal in every way that counts in the eyes of the law.

HOWEVER, I am against the sue of the word marriage because it is a religious term. Although I WISH that the Catholic church and other denominational religions would change their ways, they won't, and it isn'r fair to demand that they do. So many people consider their religion a very important thing personal to their heart and to ask the amjority to change for a few isn't fair.

I do however wish that chruches (I am speaking of catholic since thats how I was raised and all I really know) would just embrace their gay parioshoners, especially the ones they ahve known as children. Fine, don't allow them to be 'married' but assur them that in the eyes of God so long as thei union is real a is their love for one another, that He loves them anyway. I believe that he does. I bring this up only because a friend of mine is gayAND Catholic and had a very hard time of it because he was shunned by the priest he ahd a good relationship with all his life from childhood, until he came out. He was crushed and THATS the stuff I dislike...

But I think it would be just as unfair to tell the 80 year old catholic woman who has gone to church forever and really believes in the biblical standards that she has to accept these massivechanges to her faith...Also...the majority of gay couples out there, don't really care about mariage in the biblical sense because most of them DONT agree with the bible's views naturally and prefer not to deal with it.

I know my own SIL and her partner dont want a legal religious marriage for the sake of religion because neither one wnats to pratice any religion. They simply wnat the title because they believe in the eyes of the law, that title is all that matters. But if civil unions and domestic partnerships were made as equal as marriages, they wouldnt care about thetitle, because they would consider themelves merried anyway.

Its just a hard touchy situation all around but back to my original point; DEFINETLY in the eyes of the law everythign should be equal.

I think that homosexuals should be able to have a legal marriage. I also agree strongly with the fact that the government has no place in deciding who should be married in terms of religion and religion has no place in deciding what constitutes a marriage for legal purposes. The truth is that a religious marriage and a legal marriage are two different things, despite how interconnected they are in people's minds. That is why despite being married before a religious figure, regardless of your religion, you must also have a civil marriage license. It is also why you can get married in a foreign country, but must still go to city hall (or whatever govt body) when you return to legalize the marriage in the US. The legal/civil marriage IMO should provide the legal benefits that come with marriage. I think civil unions which allow for these rights are great, but the problem is that the laws then have to be rewritten to allow for certain benefits for civil unions as well. If this happens, then I'm all for it. THere are many goverment benefits and rights which are only provided for spouses, so if a spouse doesn't include a party to a civil union, no rights.

This is my opinion on what a legal marriage should be. A marriage before G-d, I leave to religious leaders to tackle.

I think since they are humans, that God did put on this earth, and I don't think they woke up one day and said geee let me be gay... I think that God created all of us, and if they were created Gay then so be it. They deserve every signle right that every other human is offered. At then end of the day, they are still people who as a single person are given all the same rights as us where ever they go, but as soon as they want to be married their not allowed to because of their sexual prefrance?? Who left those people to be God and decide what he would think in todays times.

things change, and I really don't believe God would have allowed us to discover Gay, if it wasn't meant to be.

And don't flame me(non-supporters) and tell me what about ax murderers etc. cause the devil created them!

Just to try to respond to the the questions/statements like 'what does religion have to do with it?!, it should just be the govt deciding and religion should have no part in it.'

Marriage was instituted by God from the beginning, way before the govt had ANYTHING to do with it. This made it so that for convicted Christian individuals, marriage is a union made by God, for God. Of course, to many others, they may feel marriage is either solely legal or spiritual...either way, kind of separating 'marriage' from its origins with God so that to them, they can not understand why gay people shouldn't be married. But since I am a Christian, I follow the Bible in terms of who marriage is for and what marriage is for.

Not sure if that clarified a thing, but I tried!

---

Posted by HeatherRose

I think since they are humans, that God did put on this earth, and I don't think they woke up one day and said geee let me be gay... I think that God created all of us, and if they were created Gay then so be it. They deserve every signle right that every other human is offered. At then end of the day, they are still people who as a single person are given all the same rights as us where ever they go, but as soon as they want to be married their not allowed to because of their sexual prefrance?? Who left those people to be God and decide what he would think in todays times.

things change, and I really don't believe God would have allowed us to discover Gay, if it wasn't meant to be.

And don't flame me(non-supporters) and tell me what about ax murderers etc. cause the devil created them!

---

No flames heather, honestly!

Im trying to understand what youre saying but a few things came to mind.

Most Christians would believe that the Bible is FOR today, meaning that what was written then will always apply regardless of the gradual shift in our society. God knows all, even how society would be operating today, and he planned for today as well.

Noone left nonsupporters of gay marriage 'to be God'...they are simply following God's Word in the Bible. (or i will speak for myself here, maybe other non supporters have some other reason)

As for your murderer example...when people aren't looking to the Bible for truth, they are left deciding on their own what was created by God for what purpose, what is attributed to the devil, and what they believe sin to be.

Homosexuality is not 'new' (it was not just 'discovered' recently), and even in biblical times it was something that God addressed in the Bible, in the Old Testament which was pre-Christ by at least a thousand or more years. People haven't changed all that much...technology has of course.

---

Posted by Aug07OFCbride

Just to try to respond to the the questions/statements like 'what does religion have to do with it?!, it should just be the govt deciding and religion should have no part in it.'

Marriage was instituted by God from the beginning, way before the govt had ANYTHING to do with it. This made it so that for convicted Christian individuals, marriage is a union made by God, for God. Of course, to many others, they may feel marriage is either solely legal or spiritual...either way, kind of separating 'marriage' from its origins with God so that to them, they can not understand why gay people shouldn't be married. But since I am a Christian, I follow the Bible in terms of who marriage is for and what marriage is for.

Not sure if that clarified a thing, but I tried!

---

Exactly what i tried to say but you clarified it better. the reason 'marriage' is considered marriage here in the US anyway, is because the people who FOUNDED the government were religious and DID believe in mrriage in the context of religion absed practice. Its a little odd because of the whole 'spereation of church and state' but marriage was a religious union and a term that the government chose to validate. Granted its a little odd, but there it is.

I don't think the word will matter as long as gay couples are given the exact same rights as married couples, because the people that matter and who love them will consider them 'married' and the governement would too, at least in terms of their rights if not the word.

JMO but when Pete and I were considering getting married City Hall, that would technically have been deemed a Civil Union, NOT a marriage on paper....YET we would STILL have called one another husband and wife. As long as the rights are IDENTICAL for Civil Unions and for religious based Marriages, the word 'marriage' is just semantics. Its just a title at that point that you can attach to yourself if you choose. Don't rock the waters demanding centuries odl religions change their core foundations simply because you can, IF you're being given exactly what you want.

My SIL and her partner of almost 8 years are having a union in June. Will I call them a married couple? Yep. Are they in my mind and to the rest of the fam who loves them? Yep. Will THEY cosnider themselves merried? YEP. WHY? Because they will be in a a union that hopefulyl one day will recognize them with the same rights as my DH and I and as long as that happens, they ARE married in the eyes of Uncle Sam.

My feeling on issues like this is take what you can get, gain some ground and THEN go after a little more. Sometimes I feel many special interests groups, NOT Just gay rights groups, try to get the whole cake rather than settling for a slice...for now...and then after they have a solid grasp on that slice and consume it, going after another piece and another.

These things ALL take time...

I totally respect the opinions of people who disagree and have unbelievable admiration for people who have strong faith, but I have a few thoughts....

First, you absolutely can get married and have it be a marriage at city hall. You and your husband are able to obtain a marriage license, which affords you the rights of married people under the law. Gay individuals can, in some states go to city hall and have a civil union, but are not able to obtain a marriage license, and therefore are not afforded the same rights. I personally do not have a strong opinion on whether rights given to homosexuals are called marriage or not, but there is a serious consideration. The laws, regardless of where marriage may have started, only protect those who are married. That is a defined term in our laws, that currently can only include a man and a woman. If the way the govt (hopefully representing the views of the people) went was to afford homosexuals the right to a civil union, it is only meaningful if the laws are then changed to include civil unions in the legal definitions. I also have a strong faith and believe that marriage was created long before the government. The thing is though, for better or worse, the government has the power to control marriage from the standpoint of benefits. I still strongly believe that what constitutes marriage for religious purposes is up to religions to figure out, but you cant ignore the fact that the word marriage carries legal consequences.

Also, as to giving people small amounts of rights at a time... this is the way things have gone throughout history, but I'm not sure it has really worked out. In 2008, 88 years after gaining the right to vote, women are still paid 70 cents on the dollar as compared to men and 44 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, African Americans still face serious equality obstacles.

In all, JMO

So would you rather have some rights or none at all? That is what my point is and I think you missed it. many of the more active groups are asking for all or nothing, when many gay people themselves would happily 'settle' for the rights without the title for the time being, until they can get that too.

Things are obviously not going to change anytime soon and once you bring an all or nothing stance to ANY fight, no matter what the subject might be, you meet more resistance than if you seem willing to meet in the middle. If you are not the group in power, then you work to getting that way by small steps. However if you think you will overthrow the power group by throwing a hissy fit, not going to happen. goes back to the old addage of winning more bes with honey than vinegar. Does it suck it has to be that way? Of course, but its a work in progress.

Sure we don't have a perfect system but women DO vote..African American DO get to go to the same shools without it being segregated. Does some prejudice still exist? YEP but it it a WHOLE lot better than nothing?

Sorry, but as a Latina woman and a minority, and woman of color and just being a woman period, I have to say HELL YES it is ... if we hadnt fought for a 'little at a time' and kept making slow gains, I might not have even the rights I have today.

---

Posted by soon2bmrsVPT

I agree with Melissa's post. There's too many to quote.

However, I too consider marriage a truly spiritual thing. I am a strong, practicing Catholic. Yet this is one of the main problems I have with my organized religion.

---

I agree with this. I find many Catholics pick and choose which 'laws' they will follow.
Pre-marital sex is not exactly agreeable with the Catholic church yet many people will engage in that and laugh at the fact that they are expected to remain celibate until marriage.
All couples are supposed to enter into a marriage with the hopes of producing children any time they have intercourse yet many people use a form of birth control besides the family planning technique.
Some extreme Catholics still to this day will murder someone else over a 'Religious War' that only exists in their head and will be celebrated as heros.
I don't know why it's okay to let some things slide (more the birth control and pre marital sex thing not so much the murder)but then if a homosexual couple want to live together and make a lifetime commitment to each other it's the big deal and a huge sin all because the Bible said you couldn't do that.
I think live and let live. If people are generally good and treat others well why does it matter who they share a bed with at night.
As for anyone who said that they don't take the commitment of marriage seriously have you seen the divorce rates lately. Something like 50% of marriages end in divorce, the rest end in death. A lot of straight couples don't take their commitment seriously. Being committed has to do with the people individually and not the number of X chromosomes someone has..

---

Posted by bonniejd

point taken... but, a civil union is really not a whole lot if not given the marraige rights behind it. That is the argument most people seeking marriage make. By asking homosexuals to agree to civil unions as currently provided, you are asking them to agree to separate but equal, and we all know that idea does not work. I don't think they are asking for all or nothing, the right to marry is just one right of many that homosexuals are denied. In many states in the US and, as per federal law, it is perfectly legal to openly discriminate against homosexuals. Gay marriage is also a step, albeit a larger one than civil unions.

---

I concede on the City hall thing, but I think you're still missing my point Bonnie. I am not saying to agree to the civil unions as they are now forever, because they ARE seperate but equal. What I said was, to say 'Ok, we will give up the quest to get the word 'marriage' put onto our unions..FOR NOW. BUT we do want to get ALL the rights of a married couple, including one another's benefits, hospital visitations, etc etc.'

Those will be 'unions' identical to marriages in every respect EXCEPT for the word. That was what I have been saying from the getgo. I guess it wasn't clear.

However, most (NOT alL) of the advocate groups are not willing to do that. They are saying (and I know this from having so many gay friends and relatives who follow it and share the info with me) 'We want EVERYTHING and w REFUSE to give even an inch!!!'

Well thats a noble cause maybe, and would be all well and good if they ARE a huge group and a powerhouse who could overthrow current laws and opinions. But the fact remains they are NOT.

So because some people refuse to budge on anything, my SIL and her partner and all their friends who are willing to settle for Euqality without title, for now, get screwed. They end up with nada and that was my original point-Its NOT fair. Gain the right to civil unions that are COMPLETELY like marriages without the title FIRST, then once you have that, push some more if thats what you want to do. But why cut of your nose to spit \e your face?

I get what you are saying, and I completely agree if they put force behind civil unions. And it is of, course extremely unfair. Mostly because this semantics with what word defines a relationship pulls on people's faith. The point I was making earlier was that it is not possible to create this new concept of a civil union with benefits and not rewrite the current statutes to include that term. Rewriting every state government benefit to include civil unions is an arduous task, and one that would cost an enormous amount of taxpayer money, which most people will vote against.

In any case, I think we are really arguing two sides of the same coin here, each hoping people get the rights they deserve in some fashion. I am a huge dork and am always happy to engage in intelligent debate on serious issues, so thanks for giving me something far more interesting than my work to do!

I would agree with the civil union argument (that marriage is a religious rite) if we all received a 'civil union license' from town hall. If you can 'get married' in town hall, and receive a 'marriage license', then it is not solely a religious rite.

If a law were to force religious groups to conduct gay marriages, I would be against it....

I see the current situation as religious groups taking a secular/legal right and instilling upon it their own religious views and restrictions.

I don't agree with that.