Same Sex Marriage

[jayleew]

But you expect homosexuals and non Christians to curb and compromise their position to suit your needs? What about the freedoms of others? Do they not matter?

I expect that the minority would speak to the majority with their complaints. However, I expect the majority to rule in a democracy and I would hope that the majority is considerate to the minorities point of view and making a decision for the future with their vote. It has nothing to do with suiting my needs, and everything to do with suiting the needs of the majority, because it is impossible to please everyone in every decision. And I encourage those that are on the fence and apathetic towards the issue, thinking that it will have no effect on their lives, that they investigate the possible ramifications of the decision to support homosexuality's right to marry by law. If they take a look at countries that have paved the way, they can see the negative effects and the homosexual activists' agenda. All I am saying is to get educated, and get out and vote.

 

[charles cure]

charles cure,,
What a load of nonsense (apologies if you are offended). This is the problem with atheist dogma, it uses "the theory of evolution" for everything. Has the purpose of eating evolved also, sleeping, laughing, walking. People (nowadays) may get married for different reasons, in the same way people may eat certain foodstuffs for different reasons, but neither purpose has changed.

im not offended. however, its not nonsense. it is, in fact a well documented truth that marriage and its purpose, as well as family composition and trends in marrying age, age difference between partners, reproductive expectations of marital couplings...etc, have changed from one time period to another in history,and although the basic structure of a marriage hasn't changed, its purpose has. composition does not equal purpose. a union between a man and woman is the structure of a religiously based model for marriage, but not its purpose. just as a little sidenote, there is no such thing as athesit dogma, because atheists dont have a religious belief or affiliation. the "theory" of evolving purposes for marriage, much like the actual theory of evolution, is an observable and documented process, unlike the the christian theory of "total fantasy" in which god makes unalterable and arbitrary rules with no basis in reality that eventually alienate huge sections of society.

How can the nature of marriage change? It is what it is. You may not wish to adhere to its basis, but that does not change anything other than percpective.

it can change as easily as trends in fashionable clothing can, just because marriage has been structured one way for a long time doesnt mean that it cannot be altered to include other acceptable configurations. it is a human institution, and thus, humans are able to alter its purposes and structures to suit their own needs and desires. it will still be marriage in some sense if same-sex unions are allowed, it will just not be the same exact type of marriage that everyone is used to. you my friend, are what is commonly known as a "purist". like a person who thinks that there is only one acceptable kind of jazz music and that certain artists have poisoned the entire form with their alterations of style. most people never think that deeply into the issue to care, to them, jazz is composed of a much wider range of musical subgenres, and those people still enjoy it just as much as if it had never been "polluted" in the first place. much, i think, like most people would still accept their own marriage and its concept as "real" even if gay people could also get married. by the way, as far as issues of right and wrong are concerned, perspective is everything.

The religious/spiritual aspect of marriage contains the legality also, the public aspect is a celebration of such a union, two people becoming one in spirit. Man is given the responsibility to uphold the marriage from a legal point of view, in order for it to be benificial. What has happened is, man has become corrupt and perverted (compared to the spiritual standard), eventually concealing the real purpose. The same can be said of most, if not all, of natural things.

no way. the legal definition of marriage is informed by the religious view of what constitutes a valid union, but that is where the two spheres depart from one another in shared purpose. the legal sanction of marriage is actually what enables a seperation of chruch and state on the issue. strictly legal marriage ceremonies allow people of multiple denominations, or atheists, or agnostics, or just non-religious people of any type to still have a marriage and receive the benefits of marriage as enumerated in the law without having any religious interference whatsoever. they can get married for ANY reason, as long as they stick within the guidelines of the man-woman marriage. one of my friends married a guy from colombia so he could get his green card and stay in our country. there is no spiritual reason for that, but they did it and it was legal, even though you aren't supposed to do it for that purpose. man hasn't become corrupt and perverted, man has always been as corrupt and as perverted as he is now, religious piety conceals this reality from the world and promulgates hypocrisy, fear, and repression on a massive scale over small issues of propriety when it causes society to make religious values into legal requirements.

Even thinking that, changes the spiritual aspects of it. Maybe you need to take the spiritual aspect of it more seriously, and try at least to understand what it is, instead of just using the word as if it is some kind of trend.

i dont take the spiritual aspect of it seriously because i dont have to. i dont live by religion, so its rules make no impact on my decisions,unless my options are restricted because of them. my spiritual requirements and definitions of love are my own. as long as i conform to that standard for myself, i am fine with anyone else doing pretty much anything else they want, and if i feel the need to have the commitments of my relationship enforced by the law, i will get married. but if myself and my would-be wife are true to each other, there should be no reason for that in the first place. i do understand what it is and why it has a different spiritual meaning to some people, i just dont see the point of forcing everyone who doesnt adhere to your particular belief to live by it or under its thumb.

You mean have two types of marriages, one spiritual and one secular/humanist?

yes, and in some ways we already have that, it is just not stated that specifically. but people who would want to get married for "humanist" or other secular reasons can still get a legal marriage outside of a church, and frequently do, so how are those two types not already in existence?

Okay, so what is the point of two men getting married in the eyes of God?

there is no point, and i dont think that anyone is seeking to force the christian marriage ceremony to fit the gay lifestyle. im pretty sure the main thrust of the battle is over legal recognition of gay marriages, not religious recognition.

I have not made any judgements as to whether it is good or bad, and I don't intend to. So please don't assume my personal position on the subject, in the hope that this discussion never becomes personal.

by seeking to condemn it and portraying mankind as corrupted and perverted because they have obscured the real meaning of marriage, it seems clear that you, at the least, dont see gay marriage as a good thing. i wasnt assuming that that was your position, but i thought you had made it rather clear. i dont want the discussion to become personal at all, i apologize.

I don't have a problem with same sex (so called marriage), I just don't take it as a marriage. I accept that society WILL accept this as normal in due course of time and as such humans will have no choice but to accept it as normal.

well thats just splitting hairs over what it is called, call it civil union, call it whatever, i bet a lot of people will refer to it as marriage anyway.

The purpose of marriage is to join a man and woman together for life, outside of that, it has no purpose. Man and woman can enjoy each other without getting married, so its purpoes must lie beyond that. In every society past and present there is some kind of system of marriage, a system of ownership or belonging to, no matter how uncivilised the society may be. I do not know of one society where it normal for homosexuals to be included in this system. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Christian marriage is "marriage" but from a christian perspective. The basic elements of marriage is there, a union of a man and a woman. Within a marriage, there is no promise of off-spring, the only promise is to stay together, to become one, as long as you both shall live. To me, that is the purpose of marriage.

the result of marriage is that a man and woman are joined together for life, the purposes of any specific marriage are far more complex than that i think. some people have gotten married to legitimize a child in the eyes of their community, some people marry for love, some people marry for companionship and convenience, some to improve wealth or social standing, some because their parents have engineered their relationship for many years and expect marriage as an outcome of this effort, and then i'm sure, some people get married just to reap some specific legal benefit of the union. these are all purposes that marriage can be made to serve for the people who are getting married. the result however, in every case is that the people are legally bound for life or until divorce or anullment. the result and the purpose are not the same. you say that marriage's most basic element is that it is a union between a man and a woman, why can it not be boiled down to something even more basic, such as a union between two people. or do you feel that gay people are somehow incapable of the love relationship and relational support that is required for the foundations of your version of a successful marriage? if they are, then why dont you see the most basic aspect of marriage as simply the legitimizing of a commitment that two loving people make to one another, regardless of gender or race or any other arbitrary qualities?

Forget your obsession with Christianity. I bet you the first marriage (if indeed there is such thing as a first) was between a man and a woman.

so what? just because things were that way once doesnt mean they always have to be that way. some of the earliest cars ran on steam, does that mean that once we built a car that didnt use steam it wasn't a car anymore? no. it all depends on what you believe to be the aspects of a thing that can be changed before it no longer resembles the original in any way anymore. i dont agree with you that marriage will no longer resemble itself in any way if same sex couples are allowed to participate.

This is atheist dogma, there is actually no way of knowing that with any real certainty.

no, i'm pretty sure there is a way, its called science. if it hasn't come up with the answer yet, wait a while, because it will, as it has time and again throughout its history. again, there is no such thing as atheist dogma, unless you believe that adherence to proof and reason as a basis for knowledge represents dogma.

What is the point of gay marriage in a spiritual context?
Why don't they have a ceremony for gays which allows them to become what we see as married?
Why change the meaning and purpose of marriage?

when you say spiritual context, dont you really mean religious? because there are many many different kinds of spiritualism and myriad rituals and practices in which it manifests itself. the point of gay marriage in a spiritual context, i believe, is the same point as heterosexual marriage. two people who love each other make a commitment to each other or whatever other reason people get married. why should it be up to society to create a seperate marriage ceremony for same-sex couples so that the religious types can view it as ok? why shouldnt the law reflect that the religious legitimization of marriage is largely a private concern in the first place and should have no special consideration under the law? again, the meaning and purpose of marriage varies from person to person, depending on your perspective.

That may be so for some, but for others, they see the sexual act as seriously disrespecting to God. Why object to that? Marriage was never about the whimsical act of sexual relations, if it was there would be no need of marriage, we would just live like the animals. Why not
develop (evolve) a ceremony for the purpose of homosexuals?

Jan Ardena.

if the homosexual act is so disrespectful to god, why doesnt god do something about it? why doesnt he eradicate homosexuality, since it is clearly his creation to begin with? and if youre saying that marriage isnt about sex, why should it matter the sexual orientation of those asking to be wed? im sure, if the law were amended to include homosexual marriages as legal, a completely seperate ceremony would be developed, but what is the sense in creating one if it holds no legal weight? i dont think that gays love the church that much, what with all the persecution they have suffered at the hands of religion over the years that there would be a huge mass of gay people waiting outside the doors of your community parish looking to tie the knot.