What do you think of homosexuality (and gay marriage) ?

What do you think of homosexuality and gay marriage(choose all that apply to you) ?

  • I strongly dislike gays, but think they should have the same rights as anybody else

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    134
I'm not really clear on this matter...I'm not gay but I'm also not perfectly straight either...I don't know where I stand on this issue. One thing is for certain though, I don't think people should allow gay marriages. No offense to anyone. Why do you want to complicate things by marrying? Marriage should be strictly restricted to male and female. Sorry if people disagree with me, that's just how I feel on this matter.
 
This became a topical issue for us in the UK yesterday when gay marriage became legal. About time too.
 
I saw on the news here in Japan that Elton John was just married at "the 17th century Town Hall where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles got married in April... The ceremony, which took less than an hour, was conducted by Registrar Clair Williams, who also presided over the union between Charles and Camilla":

Read the whole artilcle written by BY DANICA KIRKA, of the Chicago Sun Times at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elton22.html

In Gassho,
Rev. Hoyu
 
I personally cannot see any viable reason for gay people not to be allowed to marry, and its about time it was legalised in the Uk. Purely because history and the church have defined for so long that only a man and a woman may marry, it should not mean that it can never be so in todays society. Why should marriage be restricted to only a man and a woman, if undertaken for the right reasons, as the relationships are effectively no different, apart from biology.
 
Just to point out that it isn't strictly marriage. It is called a civil partnership. Okay it is marriage in all but name only. It also isn't just open to gay partnerships. Hetro couples can do this as well, who don't want the hassle of marriage. How long until the US allows this?
 
In the Netherlands, a country where almost everything is possible, two gays can get married and adopt children.
Maybe I am very oldfashioned, but how do those kids feel about having two father's? What must they answer when their little friends ask them; "Don't you have a mother?"
To me, only a man and a woman can have children, nature made us that way.
 
Elizabeth van Kampen said:
In the Netherlands, a country where almost everything is possible, two gays can get married and adopt children.
Maybe I am very oldfashioned, but how do those kids feel about having two father's? What must they answer when their little friends ask them; "Don't you have a mother?"
To me, only a man and a woman can have children, nature made us that way.
Children have unusual family backgrounds for all kinds of reasons - mothers can die or walk out, leaving a child with just a father and vice versa. I'd rather see a child with two men who love and care for her than with a mother and father who neglect her.
 
I don`t mind gay and lesbian(or bisexual)people as long as they don`t hit on
me...^_^
 
?傫???A?????J?l said:
It should be illegal and banished from existance.
Great to see that such an open minded person has joined the forum.:okashii:
 
?傫???A?????J?l said:
It should be illegal and banished from existance.

Why? Are you threatened by it (i.e. homosexuality)?
 
First point: The problem arises when Christians (or anyone really) bring back the old way of thinking into it, saying that marriage is for producing babies which (obviously) two members of the same gender cannot do. As much as we would like to romanticize marriage and say that it is about love in reality it isn't and hasn't ever been. How else do you think arranged marriages came into being? If love had had anything do to with it people would have been horrifide at the thought. But nope. Get married, make babies. That's how it works. But in that case, how can you justify an infertile man/woman getting married? Going by the classic difinition of marriage, EVERYONE and ANYONE incapable of producing children with their loved one should not be allow to marry. Not so cut and dry now, is it?

Second point: Marriage has become a legal thing. Married couples have different rights then un-married ones. We have already taken the "religion" out of marriage by making it mere legal contract. Why should it not apply to everyone regardless of gender or fertility then? It's a piece of paper, it should apply to all.
Sub point: What if someone not of the Christian faith wishes to marry? Should they not be allowed? If you're going to bring religion into the mix you have to realize how BIG of an issue that is. Going by what Christians say then (that marriage is a Holy Union Under God aka a religious matter) anyone not of the Christian faith should not be allowed to marry. Hopefully you can see how wrong and unfair THAT is and I think the same applies to gay marriage, it's unfair to say they cannot marry just because they have not embraced your exact ideals, "values", or lifestyle.

Third point: And if you wish to bring love into the issue, gay couples love each other just as much as straight couples. So there is no valid reason there as to why they should not be allowed to marry in the romanticized sense of the word.

To make it simple: I believe that if two men, two women, or a man and a woman wish to marry, regardless of the possiblity or impossiblity of fertility and regardless of faith, that they should be allowed to under the law.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
Second point: Marriage has become a legal thing. Married couples have different rights then un-married ones. We have already taken the "religion" out of marriage by making it mere legal contract. Why should it not apply to everyone regardless of gender or fertility then? It's a piece of paper, it should apply to all.
I agree with that.
I think, that it's perfectly acceptable, indeed expected, for any religions that disapprove of homosexual behaviour, to say that homosexual couples aren't permitted to have a marriage within that religion. Because it should be free for people to believe what they want, so if they dissaprove of a particular behaviour, they can't be made to condone it, for example, if a particular religion was to say as one of its tenets that eating meat is wrong, I wouldn't expect to call myself a believer in that religion and still continue to eat meat, nor for them to permit me to do that.

But in the legal terms, marriage, it's a contract, isn't it? Why should same-sex couples not have that right? Because in the 'civil marriage', it's nothing to do with God or something. Let religious people practice what they believe to be right, but as a civil marriage is not valid in the religious sense anyway, the piece of paper makes no difference.
 
Exactly.
Also, to pass laws in a country based on religion is wrong. Church and Sate are supposed to be separate. If all of America, and I mean every last living breathing human being, was Christian I would see no problem with the current laws regarding marriage however all of America is NOT Christian therefore you cannot make a law based on a faith not shared by the whole population of the country.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
Exactly.
Also, to pass laws in a country based on religion is wrong.

Not necessarily. If the laws happen to reflect the morals/values of the majority of the populace it matters not if they happen to coincide with the precepts of a religion. This is democracy.


Church and Sate are supposed to be separate.

Church and state, yes, perhaps.

But Values and Policy or even more directly stated, Religion and Policy.....nope. It doesn't say anywhere that a populace may not take into account it's values, religiously derived or not, when formulating laws and policies.

If all of America, and I mean every last living breathing human being, was Christian I would see no problem with the current laws regarding marriage however all of America is NOT Christian therefore you cannot make a law based on a faith not shared by the whole population of the country.

Certainly you can. This is known as "democracy". Sometimes referred to as "majority rules" or "will of the people". Your idea would be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment right to both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.
 
The United State of America is not meant to be a Democracy. "And for the Republic for which it stands" See? Right there, in the Pledge of Allegiance it is stated plainly that the United States of America is a Republic.

Not necessarily. If the laws happen to reflect the morals/values of the majority of the populace it matters not if they happen to coincide with the precepts of a religion. This is democracy.
They don't just "happen to coincide", these laws were based solely on religion and everybody knows it. And as I said, the United Sates is not supposed to be a Democracy. Also, you cannot, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT, force a religion on or a set of moral values from said religion on an entire nation, which is what they're doing.
Gay Marriage does not infringed on the rights of either person wishing to marry, Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of any third party. In order to make a law based on moral values said law must be preventing behavior that violates other humans rights, such as murder etc. Homosexuality is not in violation of any one's rights. Therefore you cannot say that this law is based on anything other then faith-only based "morals."

Church and state, yes, perhaps.
But Values and Policy or even more directly stated, Religion and Policy.....nope. It doesn't say anywhere that a populace may not take into account it's values, religiously derived or not, when formulating laws and policies.
I am sorry, but that is bulls**t. These laws are based on only one point of view, only one set of moral values NOT the populace as a whole. And these laws are not protecting rights they are violating them. If a view point protects the interests of the people's rights, even if it can also be found in the church, then that is fine because said view point is found BOTH in and out of the church. However, the view point in question comes only from the church therefore one cannot force this view point upon the masses. Homosexuality and Gay Marriage DOES NOT violate any one's rights meaning these laws are based solely on the church's standing on the matter. That is wrong.

Certainly you can. This is known as "democracy". Sometimes referred to as "majority rules" or "will of the people". Your idea would be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment right to both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.
It's a conundrum. What you're saying is the majority can infringed their beliefs on the minority but the reverse is against the law. However, the minorities are just as free to believe what they wish, speak what they wish, do as they wish as the majority. Freedom of speech works both ways, like it or not. So by passing laws based on "majority rules" is not freedom anymore then the reverse. However, homosexuals are not insisting that only gays can marry and that marriage is ONLY for people of the same gender but the reverse is what the majority wishes of them. Can you see my point?

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You see, America is a country of contradiction. You can use the above Amendment to prove your point as easily as I can and yet our points contradict one another because they are opposites. How can this be? Easy, America is built on contradiction.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed. Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.
 
Last edited:
Not to disagree, just to note: But we have had laws limiting private sexual behavior among consenting adults in the past. We also have laws regulating marriage as far as outlawing plural marriages, bigamy, fraudulent marriages and in respect to age, relationship, and mental capacity. I don't think it is purely based on religion. I would also note that no major religion currently recognizes gay marriages- that there are prohibitions (right or wrong) in every major faith on the planet.
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed. Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.

You make it seem like Christians constitute some minority with disproportionate power. The Christians ARE the masses. There are estimates that relatively recently put the figure around 75% on these sites

Religious Tolerance
Adherents.com
Wikipedia
Harper's

The problem I see is that just because the majority feels one way doesn't mean it's necessarily right. In a voting system based not upon individual citizens, but on representatives of those citizens, the possibility of slightly skewed representation exists. This is why district lines and possible gerrymandering are often hotly debated. It's also one of the issues I have with the electoral college system. That said, I'd like to see gay marriage be more of a state issue, and less interference from the federal government.
 
(copy & paste of my words from another string)

As for marriage, I do NOT believe it is ONLY a religious thing. There are plenty of people who get married outside of any religious setting. And that is nothing new in human history.

If you want to go way back one can watch Mel Brooks movie "History of the World pt 1" in which the first marriage was a blonking of a mate over the head and dragging them home. This was followed by the first gay marriage done the same way. A light-hearted take on the history that includes arranged marriages, selling of children as brides, voluntarily marrying
only in one's social class or out of it, etc...

sanctity...?

I'm not so sure about that.

It's different things for different people.
Why can't someone born with both sex orgins, none, or somewhere in between, decide for themselves who they want to marry?



+2 more things,
SOME Christians are just becoming upset because they are losing
their status as de facto official religion. Instead of privalege,
they will have to be like everybody else.

I forget the other
 
MeAndroo said:
You make it seem like Christians constitute some minority with disproportionate power. The Christians ARE the masses. There are estimates that relatively recently put the figure around 75% on these sites
I guess you just missed the whole section of my post about gays being the minority, huh? Just because Christians are a majority that does not make them 'the masses' that I meant. 'The masses' is referring to ALL not just the majority or minority. So no matter which the people in question belong too they are still impossing their view point on "the sheep-like masses" to quote Bette from The L Word. See, here's the thing, gays aren't trying to make everyone gay or join their "lifestyle" as Christians so tastelessly put it. Whereas Christians ARE trying to impose what they believe on EVERYONE. Gays just want equal rights is all, they aren't trying to make everyone Gay Lifestyle Converts.
 
Back
Top