Should Gay Marriage Exist?

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

What is communion?
In a nutshell, not looking for a theologian to explain communion haha. But its about consuming the theoretical body and blood of Christ.
Communion is a RELIGIOUS rite.

You asked what it is then say you dont want a theological answer and offer your own answer as relevant, uhm. you know thats a bit silly
Your opinion is not correct
There is non christian communion and christian communion isnt there?
There is non christian marriage and christian marriage isnt there?

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Marriage was invented over 4,000 years ago to sanctify (make legitimate or binding by religious sanction a union between a man and woman that decided to be with each other and start a family. The first couple to be married, did so with the expectation it was "before God" and consecrated over by a religious leader. Even if you want to take the darker route, marriage was codified to bind women to men as "property".

And men to women as property?
Marriage has been adopted by civil authority as a non religious ceremony
If non religious people want to partake, so be it, well done
Christian marriage is for christians and non christian marriage for anybody

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
With that said, why do gay individuals not want to take communion? Why is the Supreme Court not fighting tooth and nail so that gay individuals can partake in communion too? Why is it that a group of people that (on average) slander religion for all its worth, yet want to partake in a religious rite?

Dont they? So you say? Generalising a little bit maybe?

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Why can't we keep the state out of religion? Why do people get benefits for being married? That leads to disenfranchised people (gay individuals) that are left out of a system that accepts one union but not another? Separation of church and state....right? I guess not...

Why can't we call gay "marriage" something else? Again, the word "marriage" is a religious word and rite.

Being against "Gay Marriage" doesn't make you a homophobe unless you voice your disdain for someone just because of their life choice. If you're a religious person, I would have to question your religious piety if you think gay individuals can be "married".

Why do non christians want to get married, is that really your question? but you are just using homosexuals as your whipping horse?
Why dont you call non christian marriages something else?

I think its ok to call it marriage and celebrate anyone getting married if their intentions are honest
You have made a lot of stuff up to support your argument

Maybe Churches can be a little quieter about their bigotry toward gays also?

Maybe heterosexuals can be a little quieter about their marriages and children?

Maybe gays should just go away?

Maybe people like you should be quieter?

a reply to: tamusan

Homosexuals, whether you like it or not, ARE normal human beings who have sex with a partner of the same sex.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

I've contemplated this argument before, as well, coming to the questions and conclusion below.

Why does the state even use the word marriage? Can the state use the same word for both same sex and opposite sex marriage while leaving the word marriage to religious organizations only? Will society accept such a transition? What is a word anyways?

It doesn't matter what we call the union between two people. It may matter to some people but they are focused on tradion and and semantics rather than the Partnership between two people.

Society is unlikely to separate the word marriage from the state and leaving it for religions alone, thus using it for a description of union between both same and opposite sex couples makes sense. Unless society accepts these changes, then this is the way to go.

Words both don't matter yet matter. Adequate description is useful in describing our environment and manipulating it, but at some point, caring too much about these descriptions hinders our ability to love our neighbor, so to speak. Which is arguably the most important lesson from the world religions, yet the most difficult task set before us. Why make it even more difficult by latching so strongly onto a word?

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

If straight people can get married then i cant see why gay people should not also have to endure the same.

I would also suggest marriage in this day of age is more like a contract rather than a religious act.

If in doubt look at people who choose to get married in the likes of the registry office as opposed to a church or chapel.

a reply to: Phage

This a great position to take.

If the actions of others cause others no harm, why should one care about them. Though, many people fault the internal harm one causes oneself to other people's action. This is faulty thinking that causes much suffering.

Marriage exists, and the accepted traditional definition is the union of a man and a woman to create a bond of matrimony.

And I prefer the traditional definition. I personally go out of my way to not use the 'm-word' for the government-sanctioned union of a man and man, or woman and woman. I instead say civil union, domestic partnership, or terms that I have created: Ligyny (bond of women) or Ligandry (bond of men.) Maybe some day they'll catch on

I would be happy if ALL marriage licenses could be changed to Civil Unions or Domestic Partnership licenses/contracts. I think it could defuse a lot of emotion in the argument if we could remove the word 'marriage' from the entire fiasco. The tin-foil hat side of me thinks that is exactly *why* the powers that be don't want to use emotionless PC verbiage like Domestic Partnership to describe the legal commitment of two consenting adults, it would leave us with one less thing to argue about.

My wife and I are both atheist. We had a wedding that involved zero religion. Should we exist?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well, if the Church fell it would probably be bad.

Not sure how same sex marriage* could bring it about.


*note: I said "same sex", not homosexual because ... well, because that implies homosexual "acts" (this is awkward). I don't think that all same sex marriages involve such acts. There are actual legal issues involved.

And who the f* cares?

yes. i was for same sex marriage because of the legal iissues

end of life decisions, for one. inheritance, property ownership.hospital visiting privilege's
adoption issues. there are more. taxes.
religious marriage and annulments are more involved. especially when children are involved.



i've had 2 civil marriages, so far and dissolving the 1st was easy in a no contest divorce.state. town hall, ask for the papers and sign, boom, done. have a nice life.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well, if the Church fell it would probably be bad.

Not sure how same sex marriage* could bring it about.


*note: I said "same sex", not homosexual because ... well, because that implies homosexual "acts" (this is awkward). I don't think that all same sex marriages involve such acts. There are actual legal issues involved.

And who the f* cares?

this is the SJW movement in action. People take up causes they have nothing to do with, in order to feel more correct than others. If EVERYONE was able to MTOFB, the world would be a better place. Like it used to be. Now get off my lawn.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Why should it not exist legally? It gives partners legal rights over each other and inheritance rights. If two people live together long term they should have rights.

I feel it is immoral to force people who object, to perform their wedding or to service their wedding. I wonder why LGBT are so insistent on forcing people to participate in their wedding and pretend to be happy about it, who disapprove. I feel it is wrong to force people who feel LGBT weddings are wrong to attend and celebrate. Why bring that negativity at the beginning of a relationship.

It only increases anti-LGBT feeling to force people into celebrating one's wedding when they disapprove of the union. The same goes with heterosexual weddings, don't force anyone to attend and pretend to be happy if they don't want to be there or don't want to service the wedding. I would think that would set the tone for a hostile life together with the karma it produces.

I am ok that LGBT marriage exists for legal reasons and see no reason why it should not. At the same I do not have to approve of same sex sexual relations.

I don't approve of LGBT bedroom activity. However, that doesn't mean they don't have right to be married or that I hate them. I can like gay people and have been friends with gay people. I know of some transsexual people and have been friends with them. I can be nice to them and feel they have rights and still not approve of their bedroom activities. It is not my place to tell them I disapprove, just as it is not their place to attempt to force me to approve through legal means or doxing, social media destruction, etc.

I strongly feel that no one should force anyone else to know what they do in their sex lives or approve of what they do in their sex lives.

I feel that is rude and gauche and hate that LGBT these days feel the need to force me and force everyone they know to acknowledge what they do in the bedroom and to approve of it.

I also don't approve of heterosexual adultery, SM heterosexual activity that ends in physical harm, anal sex that ends in loss of bowel control. I have friends who have cheated on their spouses. I can still be their friend and still like them and not want to, nor do I need to, know their bedroom activities. I strongly believe in monogamous relations within marriage. I don't want to know or be forced to accept with glee what heterosexuals choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom. I can be their friend and like them without knowing their sexual behavior in private.

What I have seen as a result of this "you approve of LGBT, or else" Pharisee type behavior is: people are becoming afraid of each other. I had a stranger, same sex, pick a stray item off the back of my sweater yesterday. Normally a kind gesture. I turned around and she said to me "I wasn't making a pass at you, you had something on your sweater." I replied "I didn't think you were, thanks for taking it off that was nice of you." A few years ago the woman wouldn't have had to assume I'd think she was hitting on me by helping me out.

This obsession with forcing everyone to think in LGBT terms and to approve 100% of all LGBT bedroom activity, has created fear where it should not exist. We are now being forced by the alt-left to assume that everyone is a potential sexual partner and that rules out plain old friendship. So very sad, so very divisive to be forced assume by the alt-left that everyone is out to have sex with you.

Worst of all even Disney is now going to attempt to force everyone to think of everyone they meet as a potential sexual partner and as people who first and foremost want to hit on you, rather than just be your friend. They plan to do this by making every TV show, even for the tiniest children where there wasn't even a heterosexual relationship in it, have a LGBT relationship in it. So sad.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Some form of marriage has existed in almost every culture throughout time. It "may" have had different names, depending on where you draw the line between different and just translation, but it still existed. In some cases the context is more religious and others less.

Either way the point exist, marriage does not belong to Christianity or even the Abrahamic religions in total, in fact it's roots are so complex and varied, it's just plain absurd to try and lay such a claim to it, or define it so strictly.

Either way it wasn't "invented" 4000 years ago, at best it was the first time it was called, Marriage, maybe.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Maybe Churches can be a little quieter about their bigotry toward gays also?

Maybe heterosexuals can be a little quieter about their marriages and children?

Maybe gays should just go away?

Maybe people like you should be quieter?

a reply to: tamusan

Maybe churches aren't as bigoted as you assume, when was the last time you actually went to one to find out for yourself rather than accept the alt-left supposition that all churches are hot beds of bigotry. I assume you think the same of mosques, since the Koran is even stricter about LGBT than the Bible, and I assume you think the same of Synagogues as the Torah is part of the "church bible".

Maybe both heterosexuals and LGBT need to stop assuming people want to know about their sex lives. It seems these days the alt-left wants everyone to know what everyone else is doing in the bedroom and to accept it all and celebrate all forms of sexuality. It is no one else' business if heterosexuals engage in anal sex which leads to loss of bowel control, (yes I meant heterosexuals), but that doesn't mean I have to accept it as normal and to know they are doing it.

Maybe LGBT shouldn't be trying to cram their bedroom activities down the throats of everyone else and trying to legally force or social media force others to not just accept it but to be gleeful and rejoice in their bedroom activities. That is what I see happening today. This alienates people when one tries to force others to rejoice as well as accept what they should be keeping private.

I don't care is someone is gay, none of by business, don't make it my business.
Get married, fine, ok, not my business. But don't try make it my business by forcing me into celebrating and publicly be gleeful, or sue me for not wanting to participate.

I don't run around being publicly gleeful and openly cheering every heterosexual marriage I know of. Why should I be forced by the LGBT community to do that for very LGBT marriage I hear about?

Why are LGBT so insistent that I not only live and let live and be polite and nice to them, which people should do to everyone. But LGBT are very insistent to the point of litigation that I and everyone rejoice, dance, and celetbrate their every relationship. That creates hostility and injects karmic poison into a relationship.

Seems you hate all churches, mosques, synagogues and think they are all full of 100% dangerous and mean bigots. Isn't that the same type of prejudice you are trying to fight against LGBT? It is the same to me.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Some form of marriage has existed in almost every culture throughout time. It "may" have had different names, depending on where you draw the line between different and just translation, but it still existed. In some cases the context is more religious and others less.

It could be argued that regardless of the religiousity of the marriage in any culture, the point to the marriage was the legal recognition of children and the inheritance of their wealth and/or debt (and class/caste?) from the parents to the next generation.

By that standard, there was no need to bother with the idea that two men or two women could be married, because common sense told everyone that neither two men nor two women could have a child. If one or both of the adults had a child, it was either a bastard or from an actual marriage in the past.

Wow look, an argument that didn't require religion. They do exist.

Yes gay marriage should exist , my country was the first to make it legal back in 2001.

Living alone is a hard life , good people deserve a partner what gender they are attracted too is none of my business.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
By that standard, there was no need to bother with the idea that two men or two women could be married, because common sense told everyone that neither two men nor two women could have a child.

Adoption.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
By that standard, there was no need to bother with the idea that two men or two women could be married, because common sense told everyone that neither two men nor two women could have a child.

Adoption.

Beat me to it.

In the Netherlands gay couples are allowed to adopt , people who say they are bad parents from the get go just because they are homosexual are biased.

a reply to: TheGreazel

people who say they are bad parents from the get go just because they are homosexual are biased.

And also homophobic.

Sure . Let them pay for weddings and divorces just like the rest of us. Good for the economy.

The first legal gay wedding in the US was in 2004. If people would stop trying to show who does not like it (the baker and cake incident) and just allow it is continue there is no issue.

I agree with adoption but this can also create confusion for kids if those parents make it about them and not the child.

a reply to: matafuchs

I agree with adoption but this can also create confusion for kids if those parents make it about them and not the child.

Thats where the thinking is wrong , they don't make it any more about them and not the child compared to heterosexual couples.

They are just the same normal standard people like you and me , who want a roof above their head a job and possibly a family.