• 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: Senior Staff

gay marriages (merged)

I really think religion should be left out of this.
Marriage is only about religion IF YOU WANT IT TO BE
Lots of people these days don't, I'm not having a church marriage, i think it would be wrong to do so as I'm not christian.
Obviously gay marriages would not involve the church at all.
But they would involve eternal vows of love, fidelity, caring... after all, isn't that what marriage is really about?
Also with marriage you get recognised as a couple, as part of a family. Which I think gays deserve as much as the next person.
I think if you are going to give gays a "marriage" but not let them call it a "marriage" then you also shouldn't allow atheists to have a "marriage". It makes as much sense.
When homosexuality is tolerated and understood as being a perfectly natural thing then people can marry eachother, love eachother, grow old together and die together.
Love knows no age, race or gender, it knows only itself.
Gays are capable of love, and marriage is a big "hello! everyone! i love this person and they love me!" and EVERYONE should be given the chance to express such a beautiful circumstance.
 
don't forget what we learned from south park, retarded christian children are going to hell since they can't confess their sins.. wait is that the same religion? they all seem the same
 
So I guess I have three points I have yet to hear adequate refutation of:

1. Marriage would never exist without religion, at its very core it's a religious construct and a religious idea. Anyone who says marriage has "nothing to do" with religion needs to be honest with themselves or take a MAJOR history lesson.

2. If the state marries non-religious people, the state has that power BECAUSE of religion, i.e. we are historically a christian nation, etc. I think the power of the justice of the peace is WRONG in cases where non-religious people are married. (but what do I know) If they exploited the power of the state because they wanted to "fit in" this is a loophole just like every other legal loophole out there. Loopholes shouldn't be made law.

3. COULD we just have gay unions and straight unions have all the same tangible rights? Where the only difference is gay union does not use the term "marriage." I think SO! :)
 
247 said:
ummm no dude its actually perfectly understandable. liberty my ass, it has nothing to do with liberty. dont get wrong i am totally against religion and totally for gay rights, but you are viewing christianity as a 'group.' its much more than that, its not some girls only club that pulls up the ladder from the tree-house when the gay kid tries to climb up and join the happy boys and girls.

we're talking god here man. god is not to be fucked with.
Click to expand...

No, we're talking CIVIL marriage...not religious.
 
The Word said:
So I guess I have three points I have yet to hear adequate refutation of:

1. Marriage would never exist without religion, at its very core it's a religious construct and a religious idea. Anyone who says marriage has "nothing to do" with religion needs to be honest with themselves or take a MAJOR history lesson.

2. If the state marries non-religious people, the state has that power BECAUSE of religion, i.e. we are historically a christian nation, etc. I think the power of the justice of the peace is WRONG in cases where non-religious people are married. (but what do I know) If they exploited the power of the state because they wanted to "fit in" this is a loophole just like every other legal loophole out there. Loopholes shouldn't be made law.

3. COULD we just have gay unions and straight unions have all the same tangible rights? Where the only difference is gay union does not use the term "marriage." I think SO! :)
Click to expand...

Your first point makes no sense. Some religions marry gays...some don't. Unless you are restricting your definition of religion to some Christian sects...you have no arguement

On the third....see Plessy v. Ferguson, then Brown v. BOE
 
hashish2020 said:
Your first point makes no sense. Some religions marry gays...some don't. Unless you are restricting your definition of religion to some Christian sects...you have no arguement

On the second...learn some history. The creator does not equal a Christian god.

On the third....see Plessy v. Ferguson, then Brown v. BOE
Click to expand...
 
1. No religion founded before the founding of this country "marries" gays. I could go out and found my own religion right now and make "marriage" mean anything I want. But that doesn't mean the United States has to alter ITS definition of marriage because of what I do. The US definition IS the christian definition. I don't see what's so confusing about this.

2. Any "civil" marriage occurs through the state. And the "state's" definition of marriage IS the christian one. That's where history comes in, and also why such marriages occur via loophole.

3. I'm not looking anything up lol. Can't we just get yes or no with an explanation?
 
I was watching TV and they said in 100 years straight people wont be getting "married" anymore, because it's going to be too gay.
 
Your first point makes no sense. Some religions marry gays...some don't.
Click to expand...

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and as far as I know, Judaism, do not allow homosexual marriage. Thats like 75% of world religious people.

In fact, the only churches that allow homosexual marriage or its eqivalent are Buddhism and some of those ultra-modern Christian off-shoot churches.

So the vast majority of religions, and in particular the major ones, don't allow gays to marry or like them having sex etc.
 
When the country was founded, we decided it'd be a good idea to have laws. We didn't pull the laws out of thin air, we used judeo-christian beliefs so that our legal system wouldn't be just a constantly changing conglomerate of everyone's opinion. We also created a system of checks and balances so that if there was a really compelling reason to add or subtract from the law, the constitution could be amended.

So there you have it, the legal system of the United States is based (1) on judeo-christian philosophy, and (2) on extremely compelling and rigorous majority vote on certain topics. (amendments) It seems to me that "gay marriage" loses out on both counts.

Some states (such as MA) are going against the constitution AND against majority rule by allowing gay marriage. Bush's proposed amendment is probably to take this power from the state level to the federal level, bringing it totally under the constitutional umbrella. My guess is that it won't pass, and that states will retain the power to choose.
 
It's the end of the world, and we know it---

fuck the rest of tha song, this shit is crazy... I am american, and NEVER, I mean NEVER, not even in a million years would I expect out president to pull this shit out of his dingleberry ass. You know what? Bush is just trying to gain popularity... Mother Fucker...
 
Michael - wtf??? when did the Catholic Church perform same-sex marriages? They are most violently opposed to homosexuality of all the Christian churches and have been for 2000+ years!
 
From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions.


from John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, (New York: Villard Books, 1994).

i also hate to inform the misinformed that common law marraige predates any modern church.
 
dpuerto said:
there's too much gay knowledge spreading around this message board...
Click to expand...


you wouldnt be posting in here if the topic didnt catch your eye, now would you?..... i think dpuerto needs some gay knowledge spread all over him.....
 
I was just going to post, because I was watching TV, the news or something, and they said in about a hundred years straight couples will no longer get married, because it will be too damn gay.
 
Mellow*D said:
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and as far as I know, Judaism, do not allow homosexual marriage. Thats like 75% of world religious people.

In fact, the only churches that allow homosexual marriage or its eqivalent are Buddhism and some of those ultra-modern Christian off-shoot churches.

So the vast majority of religions, and in particular the major ones, don't allow gays to marry or like them having sex etc.
Click to expand...

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/marriage.html
 
The Word said:
1. No religion founded before the founding of this country "marries" gays. I could go out and found my own religion right now and make "marriage" mean anything I want. But that doesn't mean the United States has to alter ITS definition of marriage because of what I do. The US definition IS the christian definition. I don't see what's so confusing about this.

2. Any "civil" marriage occurs through the state. And the "state's" definition of marriage IS the christian one. That's where history comes in, and also why such marriages occur via loophole.

3. I'm not looking anything up lol. Can't we just get yes or no with an explanation?
Click to expand...

2) What the hell ar you talking about? Civil does not equal religious, plain and simple

3) IT WAS NOT BASED ON JUDEO CHRISTIAN IDEALS--Do we even teach enlightenment era political philopohy in school anymore?
 
hashish2020 said:
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/marriage.html
Click to expand...

Well those are certainly examples of christian same-sex unions, and thankyou for posting them because I had never read of those before!

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the modern churches do not condone same-sex unions. I'm sure if you presented those cases to the Pope he would get his cardinals to dismiss it some way or other.

2) What the hell ar you talking about? Civil does not equal religious, plain and simple
Click to expand...

Civil marriage has a founding in religious ceremony, but other than that the modern civil marriage is not religious.

i also hate to inform the misinformed that common law marraige predates any modern church.
Click to expand...

Then inform us with facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top