Gay/Lesbian religious unions (Marriage)

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Working for an Anglican church in Canada means that I am innundated with questions and opinion on the topic daily. Some people are all for it...no restrictions, others are opposed to the term "Marriage" being used for homosexuals because the common definition for marriage is between a man and a woman. Some don't like the idea because marriage should be for procreation only.

For me...it's a rights issue...equal treatment under the law, but there is that seperation between church and state to consider. The church is not supposed to step in between the people and their gvt. but Pop John Paul proved that this is not the case.

Opinions?
 
MrBishop said:
Working for an Anglican church in Canada means that I am innundated with questions and opinion on the topic daily. Some people are all for it...no restrictions, others are opposed to the term "Marriage" being used for homosexuals because the common definition for marriage is between a man and a woman. Some don't like the idea because marriage should be for procreation only.

For me...it's a rights issue...equal treatment under the law, but there is that seperation between church and state to consider. The church is not supposed to step in between the people and their gvt. but Pop John Paul proved that this is not the case.

Opinions?

If they want to do that, I think it should be allowed. Who is the gov or the church to step all over peoples freedoms.

A gov is created for the benifit of the people, not the other way around.

People should be allowed to do what they want and live the way they see fit, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.
 
AnomalousEntity said:
If they want to do that, I think it should be allowed. Who is the gov or the church to step all over peoples freedoms.

A gov is created for the benifit of the people, not the other way around.

People should be allowed to do what they want and live the way they see fit, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.


I agree 100%
 
AnomalousEntity said:
If they want to do that, I think it should be allowed. Who is the gov or the church to step all over peoples freedoms.

A gov is created for the benifit of the people, not the other way around.

People should be allowed to do what they want and live the way they see fit, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.

The problem is that it does hurt some people, and they leave churches that sanction marriages...and those churches lose money and are eventually forced to either give it up, or close.

As for governments...it's a tax issue and an insurance issue as well. Married couples get better tax benefits, RRSP, retirement...then there's hospitals (You're not family unless you're maried...no DNR's for you...the real family takes over, even if they havn't seen the victim in decades.)

there are a LOT of things associated with marriage that make this a far larger issue than it seems on the surface.
 
before i even get started, i am guilty of the thing i am about to bitch about, so don't think i am on a pious highhorse. no one adheres to the original definition of marriage anymore. divorce, remarriage, not to even mention the whole adultery bit, which isn't part of the issue at hand, so i will not mention it again. it seems to me that it is hypocritical to say that homosexuals can't marry each other but heterosexuals can marry woever and whenever they want willy-nilly. people are just insensitive bastards and don't understand that just because they don't understand the love between 2 people that it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i think that if you are lucky enough to have found some one whom you truly love- you should be able to marry them! why the hell not?
 
MrBishop said:
The problem is that it does hurt some people, and they leave churches that sanction marriages...and those churches lose money and are eventually forced to either give it up, or close.

As for governments...it's a tax issue and an insurance issue as well. Married couples get better tax benefits, RRSP, retirement...then there's hospitals (You're not family unless you're maried...no DNR's for you...the real family takes over, even if they havn't seen the victim in decades.)

there are a LOT of things associated with marriage that make this a far larger issue than it seems on the surface.


But if you are referring to the legal/contractual issues I would still say that same sex partners should legitimately enter into that just as easy as opposite sex partners.


From the religious perspective, well there are people who believe catholics shouldnt marry protestants, buddest should not marry christian, atheist shouldnt marry agnostic, roasann bar viewers shouldnt marry jerry springer fans, OT central posters dont mix with JJR512 etc etc.

A great man once said: "You can make all of the people happy some of the time, and you can make some of the people happy all of the time, but you cant make all of the people happy all of the time"
 
"A man with big hands walks lightly in the grass, but always carries loose change."

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
 
i am for equal rights for everyone. that said I have no qualms about gay marriage. as Tonks said if your lucky enough to have found the one you love you should be able to marry him/her. i feel that way for everyone.
 
If gays want to congregate, fine. Live together? Whatever. But I object to terms like family, marriage, and spouse being applied to them. Those words already have definitions. If they want to make up new, equivelant words for sexually ambivilant folk, go ahead. Demand that that catagory have the same rights as married folk? Whatever. But a married couple is a man and a woman. A family is a man, a woman, and their children. That's not politics. That's not religion. That's the fucking english language.
 
Language changes over time, -- new words emerge, other words drop out for lack of usage, and the meaning of certain words changes. The English I read and write today is not the same language it was 400 years ago.

Likewise, society changes. We evolve. Adapt or die. :D
 
Would that be because 'tolerance' is a learned behaviour that is not beneficial? Or because the practice of homosexuality endangers the survival of the species?
 
tonks said:
it seems to me that it is hypocritical to say that homosexuals can't marry each other but heterosexuals can marry woever and whenever they want willy-nilly.


Look more closely at certain religions. That is not always the case. The problem was and is the state getting involved. Marriage is, by definition, a religious institution for creating & maintaining a family. It's okay for a catholic to marry in the church, once, unless there is some extraordinary situation that allows the dissolution of the first marriage. That same catholic can go to a JOP & marry as many times as he/she pleases. The additional marriages won't be recognized by the church however. So, if your religion is important, you don't do that.

AE said:
From the religious perspective, well there are people who believe catholics shouldnt marry protestants, buddest should not marry christian, atheist shouldnt marry agnostic, roasann bar viewers shouldnt marry jerry springer fans, OT central posters dont mix with JJR512 etc etc.

Once again, if religion is an important part of your life then this makes perfect sense. If a religious protestant & a religious jew marry then have kids, which is the proper belief to raise them in? At some point, I'll guarantee you, there will be friction in the home over this. Most likely ending up in a divorce. It's probably happened more often than money woes killing a marriage. If a religious person marrys a non-religious person, after a point, the kids will say "why doesn't mommy/daddy get up & go with us?" Then they will, eventually, quit going. It's also tough to answer a question when you think it's bunk.

Marriage has already been defined by centuries of practice as a bond between a man & woman. If that is changed, what is to stop other groups from demanding the same? Bob the plumber wants to marry his german shepherd. What's wrong with that? It's only an alternative lifestyle. "Hey, did you hear? Stephanie is marrying her father next week". Another legitimate alternative lifestyle choice thanks to the 5th circuit court in Texas.

There should be a civil ceremony for gays to enter into a legally binding partnership. If, howeverm they want to get married, let 'em go hetero.
 
As for governments...it's a tax issue and an insurance issue as well. Married couples get better tax benefits, RRSP, retirement...then there's hospitals (You're not family unless you're maried...no DNR's for you...the real family takes over, even if they havn't seen the victim in decades.)

Technically isn't that saving money? If those two gay guys were straight and got married then would be producing two different families instead of one if they were gay. Tthose two families would be spent on more than one family.

Anyway even if a gay man marries another gay man...same as if he'd married a woman from financial spending point of view.
 
Professur said:
. A family is a man, a woman, and their children. That's not politics. That's not religion. That's the fucking english language.


Thats not exactly correct. If three brothers live together, they are a family. If there are children from previous relationships, they are not "their children" but they are a family.

In one case I know of, a wife left one brother for another brother. So the Uncle of the kids from the first relationship is also the father. The cousins are also step brothers and sisters...but they are "family"

I am raising a child who is not biologically mine, but he is my "family" and Id kill or die for him same as if he was mine.

So, the question is, does family have to involve 2 members of opposite sex in order to constitute "family"?


Well lets look at Websters:


"1 : a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : HOUSEHOLD
2 a : a group of persons of common ancestry : CLAN b : a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : RACE
3 a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : FELLOWSHIP b : the staff of a high official (as the President)
4 : a group of things related by common characteristics: as a : a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b : a group of soils that have similar profiles and include one or more series c : a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their own or adopted children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family <a single-parent family> b : spouse and children <want to spend more time with my family>
6 a : a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera b in livestock breeding (1) : the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2) : an identifiable strain within a breed
7 : a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8 : a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area "


The same sex scenario could meet numbers 1, 2, 3, and 8 if they are good in their family buisness. :D
 
Ina ddition, couples who marry and cannot, or choose not to have children are still married, despite the lack of procreation.

I am wondering if the creation of a new term for gay-marriage (ie Bonded) but with the same rights and responsibilities, including the pains of divorce, would clear up the issue anyway.

"Hi...my name is Bob, and this is Jeff...we're bonded"
 
MrBishop said:
Ina ddition, couples who marry and cannot, or choose not to have children are still married, despite the lack of procreation.

I am wondering if the creation of a new term for gay-marriage (ie Bonded) but with the same rights and responsibilities, including the pains of divorce, would clear up the issue anyway.

"Hi...my name is Bob, and this is Jeff...we're bonded"

It's degrading...just call them married...marriage is an old word....society changes so the language should accomodate but not by creating new words to describe variation on an already existing meanings...just include them in the definition.

What is so wrong with gay people getting married..or being called married....the whole debate is inane seeing as how it all comes down to them being included in the same definition of marriage as straight couples....BOO FUCKING HOO...get over it. So they are married, so they are the same sex? not a determining factor of their humanity. Marriage is after all a social construct, we let it get us so wrapped up with arcaic dillemas that we forget the bigger picture. Fuck new words for descrbing gay marriages....last thing the modern world needs is new labels.
 
If the debate is so inane, why is it so important to the gay community that the word be used? It's because marriage is an old word, an old concept. They want it, to try and elevate themselves to the same level that married men and women have always held. They don't give a shit about pensions. They want to be equal to straight people in society's eyes. Fuck that.
 
marriage is two people sharing there lives, you don't hae to be maried to do that, but that is what it means to me

paopel are making sucha deal out of gay marriages, saying it's wrong, it's demeaning marriage

I look at it like this, marriage recently is, in north american, and western europe society, a joke, divorce cheating etc.

To these gay people who want ot be married, they want it out of love for there partners, it's almost like they will reclaim it.

and the moral majority can kiss my ass
 
Back
Top