• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

gay marriages (merged)

3. I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry in churches where they are not welcome

as chaos butterfly said, this statement can be interpreted as saying homosexuals are not welcome in church... it is the way you worded it, and no, i do not think it was stated correctly if your intention was to say that homosexual MARRIAGES are not welcome in the church.... i am sure i am not the only one who read it the way i did...

"Homosexual 'marriage' should be allowed, just call it something else and have it performed the same way bar religious ceremony. Simple."..... if we discriminate against homosexuals by making their "marriage" be called something else, if they do not have a religious cermeony, then EVERYONE who gets married in the unconventional way should not be allowed to call their unions marriages..... why is it that me and my hubby can say that we are married, since we are a) both athiests and b)were not married in the traditional way of the church? but homosexuals cannot say they are married if they do it by the same means? are you against atheists calling themselves married because they do not believe in the churches teachings and beliefs? i am sure atheist marriages are really not accepted to well in the church, but they happen, and are recognized, and are permitted to be called marriages......
 
Mellow*D said:
oh please. Tell me how a union that grants EXACTLY the same rights as a marriage would be any different in terms of granting rights? Have you even READ what I've been saying all this time????????
Click to expand...

unfortunately, yes, i have been reading your posts.

now, how does this supposed union grant the same rights if you are denied the right to call it a marraige?
 
Mellow*D said:
3. I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry in churches where they are not welcome which is entirely possible were a bill to be passed allowing same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

where have you seen it suggested that churches would somehow be forced to perform gay marraiges?
 
Ban that shit. I pray to god that bush wins in getting gay marriges banned in the constitution.

Infact, thats just one more reason why im gonna vote for him come voting season.
 
Okay Im not going to post in here anymore, I've been very disappointed with the responses I've got in here.

Homophobe? yeah that fucking hurts.

I apologise for attempting to state my point. Clearly my opinion is not welcome here.
 
Mellow*D your opinion is welcome, but surely you can see how fkn badly it would hurt peoples feelings?
think about a gay couple, how they will react.
your arguements really don't make sense to me.
i understand it, i guess... but i still think you arent thinking about humans feelings in this matter, and you should be.
there is nothing wrong with gay marriages, they should be called marriages, and homophobes should all perish. im not saying die... but it would be good if the homophobia within them died.
and DigitalDuality, i worship you :)
ive decided im going to become queen of the world, somehow, and make everything better.
 
TranceAggie said:
Ban that shit. I pray to god that bush wins in getting gay marriges banned in the constitution.

Infact, thats just one more reason why im gonna vote for him come voting season.
Click to expand...


Wow. What a wonderful arguement. When I grow up, I wanna be just like you. :\




Gay marriage should be allowed. Granted, if a particular "church" doesnt want them to marry there, then so be it. But marriage isnt just about church. Its about love, commitment, yada yada yada, you get the drift. If two people are willing to commit to each other, they should be allowed, regardless of gender. Just because your "reliegon" or homo-phobic prejudices think it is wrong, doesnt mean it should be made into an amendment.

While you're banning gay marriages, why not ban interracial marriages as well, so we can keep our families safe.



I just pray that Bush's daughter turns out gay... cause that'd be one hot lesbian. ;)
 
Decided to do multiple posts for one simple reason:

"I have to apologize...if in FACT marriage ORIGINALLY had nothing to do with religion and was instead a civil institution, then I agree that gay marriages should probably be allowed. " - Me

[this in light of DD's post: "Marriage is on a personal level.. Civil Union is under the gov't. The gov't just so happens to call it a "marriage". Civil unions outdate christianity anyways. "]

But since marriage is thousands of years older than our own beloved republic, I find it extremely hard to believe that some other country's government centuries ago just came up with it one day. AND why would it have been termed "man and woman" in every major religion and culture all the way back through all of history? (again, if I'm erring about these statements, I'll count on the history buffs to chime in) And please no anecdotal examples, I'm looking for major governments, religions, and cultures. (read: most of the world at any given time) Not a few thousand people on some island in 300BC or somebody's aunt Alice.

So my next few posts will proceed as if the Jewish/Christian/Islamic religious philosophy truly does lie at the heart of marriage. I'm not a bigot or a homophobe or even religious. I do believe in most aspects of Christian philosophy, because if I believe in any god at all, it's the Christian one. And if there is no god, I don't believe in any "rights" or "morals" or anything similar because I feel they have no basis. Except guess what? The only basis would be majority rule and military force, the "might makes right" philosophy. And if a moral changes, was it ever a moral in the first place? I say no. If something is moral, then it's just as moral in the year 150 as it is in the year 2550. If it's amoral in 150, amoral in 2550, and so on. Anyway, have to sleep, will post more.
 
Last edited:
for crying out loud, would you at least read our posts before you continue to respond with the drivel you keep spouting?
 
The Word said:

And if there is no god, I don't believe in any "rights" or "morals" or anything similar because I feel they have no basis. Except guess what? The only basis would be majority rule and military force, the "might makes right" philosophy. And if a moral changes, was it ever a moral in the first place? I say no. If something is moral, then it's just as moral in the year 150 as it is in the year 2550. If it's amoral in 150, amoral in 2550, and so on. Anyway, have to sleep, will post more.
Click to expand...

okay... um. wtf.
firstly, why shouldnt humans have morals and rights if there is no god? we should all love eachother, regardless of wether there is some "higher purpose" or not.
and "morals" DO change.
it used to be really uncool (neil voice) for a girl to wear shorts back in the day. but now its fine.
it used to be sinful for people to be gay openly
but now, it is slowly, becoming fine. (YAY! :D)
we all change with time, to try and stop it would be stupid, what we should do is make these changes develop in good and human-helping ways.
promoting love is a VERY good thing!
and its uncool for a guy to wear skirts nowadays, maybe sometime in the future guys will be able too wear skirts as well as girls without getting raised eyebrows about their sexuality!
but yeah... its good to read that pretty much everyone is pro gay MARRIAGES (yes MARRIAGE!). yay us! we rock!
ah so many wonderful people in the world, but sometimes we forget that by only focusing on the bigots.
 
Mellow*D said:
I apologise for attempting to state my point. Clearly my opinion is not welcome here.
Click to expand...

your feelings are hurt because of something so mundane as being made to feel unwelcome.

now put youselves in the shoes of a loving gay couple who want to marry but can't because of attitudes like that. sucks, huh?

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
your feelings are hurt because of something so mundane as being made to feel unwelcome.

now put youselves in the shoes of a loving gay couple who want to marry but can't because of attitudes like that. sucks, huh?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Sad,but true.

Just another case of a hypocriticial SELFISH bigot - Referring to Mellow *D of course.


Also,good to see so many kind people sticking up for 'human rights' ;).

Regarding religion: I'm NOT at all.But,I feel I have good strong morals.I try to live by:-

"Treat people the way I'd want to be treated" & "Treat me well, you'll get that in return,treat me badly and you will get treated badly in return".
 
Wacky said:
"Treat people the way I'd want to be treated" & "Treat me well, you'll get that in return,treat me badly and you will get treated badly in return".
Click to expand...

i like to say "judge not, ye of glass condos, lest ye be stoned yourself."

and yeah, it comes from bloom county.

*goes off to stomp some dandelions*
 
Wacky said:

Just another case of a hypocriticial SELFISH bigot - Referring to Mellow *D of course.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, but why on earth would you flame someone like this???

Have you actually bothered to read the entire thread and attempt to look at it from the other persons point of view or are you so God damn perfect that whatever your mind decides is therefore correct and untouchable.

I think a retraction is desirable if not an out and out apology.



This as I understand it is what Mellow is trying to say.

1. he has no problems with either homosexuals or a homosexual relationship.

2. He has no problem with them having a union/marriage (we will come back to this in a moment).

3. he has no problems with them enjoying exactly the same rights that any married couple should enjoy.

4. He feels that there should not be a law that would force any religions who, for whatever reason, do not agree with homosexuality, into having to perform a marriage ceremony, which would hence be against there beliefs.



Now please explain to me where the problem is with that????


I have absolutely no beliefs in God, any God, whatsoever, quite the contrary. However in the same way that I respect a gay persons right to be treated exactly the same way as anyone else, I also respect the fact that the church should have the right to have there beliefs upheld.

Surely nobody could have a problem with that.

In regard to the Union/marriage discussion. The way i see it, a rose by any other name is still a rose. I cant see a problem with calling it marriage but to be honest I cant see any difference to calling it a union.

There is a few questions I would like to ask Mellow and that is this. Mate Im guessing that it may be possible for a gay person to actually believe in God. For the gay person to be able to accept the churches beliefs shouldnt cause to much of a problem as I think most people who believe in a religion would not necessarily accept or believe in every single one of the ideals that there church proclaims. But I may be wrong........maybe everyone does 100% fully agree with there religions ideals.

Lets assume that a gay person has been a regular church follower and strongly believes in God, but his/her church does not accept gay persons............Would you consider that they may be entitled to a church marriage in that instance??

Also I was wondering if you could help me to understand exactly what it is that your religion says in its rules regards to gay people. Like do they simply say that they are bad? Or is it deeper than that?
And as I understand it, most religions seem to preach that there God loves everyone equally........hence wouldnt that include the gay person, hence wouldnt the gay person be welcome??
 
Wacky said:

"Treat people the way I'd want to be treated" & "Treat me well, you'll get that in return,treat me badly and you will get treated badly in return".
Click to expand...

Well we can really see that you truly live by that statement8(
 
The Word said:
But since marriage is thousands of years older than our own beloved republic, I find it extremely hard to believe that some other country's government centuries ago just came up with it one day.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that, because religion "invented" marriage, we're not allowed to adapt the meaning of marriage to keep with the times? This argument amounts to nothing more than schoolyard "we had it first" mentality.

AND why would it have been termed "man and woman" in every major religion and culture all the way back through all of history?
Click to expand...
Because, sadly, majority rules. And there has been a lot of small-mindedness and bigotry throughout the history of religion (and civilisation in general).

The only basis [for rights/morals] would be majority rule and military force, the "might makes right" philosophy.
Click to expand...
Eh? Are you seriously advocating a "majority rules" approach or being sarcastic? If the majority of people decide to persecute a minority, is that morally acceptable? I think not.

And if a moral changes, was it ever a moral in the first place? I say no.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Ergo I believe the idea of restricting marriage to heterosexuals is just as immoral now, as it was when the idea of marriage was concocted by a religion/government/God (or whatever you choose to believe) in the first place.
 
MazDan said:
2. He has no problem with them having a union/marriage (we will come back to this in a moment).

3. he has no problems with them enjoying exactly the same rights that any married couple should enjoy.
Click to expand...
That's where you're wrong. Mellow*D has specifically said that the word "marriage" should not apply to gays. Ergo he does not think they should have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.

Saying they can get married, but denying them the right to call it a true "marriage", is a joke. It's like sticking two fingers up at them - a steadfast refusal to accept that they are the same as the rest of us. There can be no half-measures in the true abolishment of bigotry.

4. He feels that there should not be a law that would force any religions who, for whatever reason, do not agree with homosexuality, into having to perform a marriage ceremony, which would hence be against there beliefs.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to respect everyone's beliefs. We have to be careful about over-zealously dictating morals to people. Why should the government favour one belief system over another? Just because Christians are the majority in America, or because the country is "officially"/"historically" Christian?

We just have to try to differentiate between those beliefs that are completely arbitrary (e.g. some of those fabricated by religious groups) and those beliefs that have some foundation in morality (which of course is subjective, but definitely independent of religion) and in the interest of keeping society in order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top