[Izzy]

Before I begin, I'm going to point out a few things about myself. Although I'm trying to write this as unbiasedly as possible, I feel obligated to mention my stances on religion, sexuality, and government. I think if everyone knows my position starting out, it won't lead to any guesses or false information. For one, I'm atheist, and not a huge fan of churches to begin with. I haven't believed in any sort of God for about 3 years now (I was agnostic/atheist on and off for some time, but definitely atheist now). On sexuality, well, it's complicated. Let's just say I'm attracted to cool people, be they male or female. I'm 100% for gay rights, and I have no problem growing old with, um, a woman. (Still a little weird saying that >_>). Also, I'm liberal. Although I have no problem with conservatives in general, I do not agree with the majority of their values as presented by McCain during the '08 election or by Bush since I've been in Kindergarten. Though these two men do not reflect all conservative ideas, they are pretty much all I'm familiar with, ergo what I base my views on.

So, let's sum that up. Anti-church, pro-gay, anti-conservative, pro-liberal. That's 4 points State, 0 points Church. Without a doubt, we can see which side I'm on when it comes to most matters. But then you're probably wondering where the (my) problem lies.

To begin, marriage is pretty much a holy union strictly between men and women, as approved by God and the church, and legalized by some sort of spiritual. representative. People all over the world get married, yet it's always with some sort of priest. Marriage was created by the church, so isn't it their say who can and can not be married? If a church decides gays shouldn't be allowed to wed because it goes against their bible, isn't their decision final? A priest can totally deny wedding a same-sex couple just because s/he feels like it, right? ...Right?

Well, so far I'm not convinced. Though marriage is legally binding, and all things legal are controlled/created by our governments, (I'm not implying that marriage was created by our government, I'm saying that the fact that it actually means something with some sort of legal-stand-point was set down in the law by our regime), there isn't really anything that changes about you once you get married. You own more things, and if you're female you go from a miss to a Mrs. It isn't illegal to cheat on your spouse, in fact, nothing that the bible says you shouldn't do whilst married is illegal, it just generally causes a divorce.

So then, what's the point of getting married? For theists, I suppose it's some holy matrimony that shows the world and God they love each other. For atheists, it's just showing the world they love each other. However, in this case, are atheists any different than gays? Why would churches allow someone who very openly doesn't believe in God to get married, while someone who does believe in God yet is attracted to someone of their own gender can not? I think that's just about the dumbest thing ever.

So, Church vs. State on Marriage Laws, at this point the church wins. They created it, they control. The State should have no say because honestly they've got nothing to do with it. If the State were to abolish all churches ( ) and recreate marriage to where it means something more than just binding two people my God, then all problems solved. Alternatively, there should be some sort of equal to marriage for atheists and gays. Not that domestic partnership stuff. It's still marriage, as in the people are still bound by the same rules, it just has nothing to do with religion. I could so go for that.

Anyway... Discuss! Debate! I'm going to bed now.

[Guest]

Okay... First off... I am glad to finally be a member of brainden... second off...

I don't agree with alot that you are saying... I am a conservative catholic, but I also respect others views... I think that Gay marriage should be left up to the couples, and they shouldn't be stopped by a silly rule, but as for some of the things...

a) Your little remark about abolishing churchs is VERY disrespectful. what if everyone was forced to go to church? how would that make you feel?

b) I feel very disrespected by what you are saying about atheists are anti church. I have multiple friends that are athiest, and they all respect my veiws and i respect their views... you don't see a Christan going anti-atheist.

c) Libral does NOT mean that you are for the state and against the church.

I think that your argument is flawed becuse you have put this as a state vs. church in which it is NOT the case...

But as for a lighter note...

why is your post purple?

[Izzy]

Okay... First off... I am glad to finally be a member of brainden... second off...

I don't agree with alot that you are saying... I am a conservative catholic, but I also respect others views... I think that Gay marriage should be left up to the couples, and they shouldn't be stopped by a silly rule, but as for some of the things...

Yeah, but as you've probably seen on the news, churches don't see it that way.

a) Your little remark about abolishing churchs is VERY disrespectful. what if everyone was forced to go to church? how would that make you feel?

I didn't actually mean that. It was supposed to be taken lightly, hence the smiley face. I just thought it would help to see how much easier this problem would be if the church didn't have so much to do with marriage and if it were all state controlled.

b) I feel very disrespected by what you are saying about atheists are anti church. I have multiple friends that are athiest, and they all respect my veiws and i respect their views... you don't see a Christan going anti-atheist.

I'm sorry. In my experience, I've only met one person (irl) that hasn't said "Go to hell" or looked at me funny when I told him I was an atheist. I was trying to be disrespectful, but that's just how I feel about things at the moment, so sorry if it came off like that.

c) Libral does NOT mean that you are for the state and against the church.

Liberal means I'm not Conservative. Conservatives are very church-going people. If you'll notice at the top, I put an anti-conservative mark. I put this under state not really because it belongs there, but because it is more state than church. If you want, I can put it in the neutral category.

I think that your argument is flawed becuse you have put this as a state vs. church in which it is NOT the case...

What is the case then?

But as for a lighter note...

why is your post purple?

Purple pwns all.

[Guest]

Wait wait wait... what if you had a gay coulpe living right next to you? How would you feel about that???

[Guest]

Wait wait wait... what if you had a gay coulpe living right next to you? How would you feel about that???

How am I meant to feel about that? I don't see why that should be any different to having a heterosexual couple living next door to me. I have a few gay friends and I don't have any problem with them and I hope that they will have a happy wedding if that's what they wish.

Our wedding was performed by a lay person as we didn't want religion involved in our wedding. Weddings in this country have two essential parts; one to keep it in line with the law of God and one to keep it in line with the law of the land.

If the church was to have final say, who would be the spokesperson? The pope? The archbishop of Canterbury? I do not mean any disrespect by this question, it is just highlighting the fact that there are many divisions within Christianity let alone all the other religions.

Sorry for having so many points (not very well organised). I hope that it makes sense.

[Izzy]

Wait wait wait... what if you had a gay coulpe living right next to you? How would you feel about that???

0.o Who is that directed at? I'd be totally fine with it.

If the church was to have final say, who would be the spokesperson? The pope? The archbishop of Canterbury? I do not mean any disrespect by this question, it is just highlighting the fact that there are many divisions within Christianity let alone all the other religions.

No idea. I don't like religion, so I don't look into it that much. I guess whoever's most in charge makes the rule.

[Guest]

I belive church and state should be totally seprareted, which brings up a problem, is marrige part of church or state. Well, the truth is, it's more a matter of state than church, though it is perfectly Ok, for theists to bring God into their marrige. While I am dead-set against gay marriage, I believe we should be tolerant of others opinoins, but I seriously think anyone gay needs a shrink. Honestly, gays are totally against human nature, and I think it's slightly freaky. But I am also open to the fact that it could be alright, but there is no way I am getting married to a woman. Well, I am kind of undecided. I think after we discuss, we should VOTE!!

[Guest]

I belive church and state should be totally seprareted, which brings up a problem, is marrige part of church or state. Well, the truth is, it's more a matter of state than church, though it is perfectly Ok, for theists to bring God into their marrige. While I am dead-set against gay marriage, I believe we should be tolerant of others opinoins, but I seriously think anyone gay needs a shrink. Honestly, gays are totally against human nature, and I think it's slightly freaky. But I am also open to the fact that it could be alright, but there is no way I am getting married to a woman. Well, I am kind of undecided. I think after we discuss, we should VOTE!!

I disagree with this a little bit, but I suppose that has a lot to do with my own beliefs. I believe that the act of Marrying someone is a religious affair, and that the individual religions should have say over whether or not they will sanctify any particular marriage (this is common when people of two different faiths get married). However, the issue is that the problems that a church may or may not have with same sex marriages are being dragged into political affairs, and that is pretty much because the same word is used in both the religious and legal senses of a single "marriage." That said, I think that all people should be welcome to enter into a Civil Union (or whatever term you prefer) where they gain the benefits and protections that we currently associate with a marriage. This should be true no matter what their sexual preference is and no matter who they choose for a spouse. It should be up to whatever religion they are a part of to decide whether or not they will consider this a "holy matrimony" or not.

Honestly, the whole issue could be completely avoided if we just used different words, which is kind of sad.

[andromeda]

I belive church and state should be totally seprareted, which brings up a problem, is marrige part of church or state. Well, the truth is, it's more a matter of state than church, though it is perfectly Ok, for theists to bring God into their marrige. While I am dead-set against gay marriage, I believe we should be tolerant of others opinoins, but I seriously think anyone gay needs a shrink. Honestly, gays are totally against human nature, and I think it's slightly freaky. But I am also open to the fact that it could be alright, but there is no way I am getting married to a woman. Well, I am kind of undecided. I think after we discuss, we should VOTE!!

I don't think so!

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex. In fact 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality! (Only the animals that have been observed so that number will increase)

Homosexuality is perfectly natural!

Edited December 9, 2008 by andromeda

[Guest]

Actually i was directing that question at everyone..... and i dont care really. Actually it's kinda fun... it's like a girl's choice but not a girl. Someone who can help you but doesnt have to be a girl... that way if you want to surprize your wife or girlfriend BOOM!!!!! You have the answer

[Izzy]

I belive church and state should be totally seprareted,

Agreed. They are.

which brings up a problem, is marrige part of church or state.

That\'s what this thread is about.

Well, the truth is, it\'s more a matter of state than church, though it is perfectly Ok, for theists to bring God into their marrige.

Care to explain why it\'s more of a matter of state?

While I am dead-set against gay marriage,I believe we should be tolerant of others opinoins,

Meh to the first bit, good to the second

but I seriously think anyone gay needs a shrink. Honestly, gays are totally against human nature, and I think it\'s slightly freaky.

*cringe* Please go read Andromeda\'s post before I say something I regret...

But I am also open to the fact that it could be alright, but there is no way I am getting married to a woman. Well, I am kind of undecided. I think after we discuss, we should VOTE!!

Better. And definitely.

Also, SomeGuy, I love what you just posted. That\'s what I was trying to say in my last paragraph.

*edit* The quotes got all messed up.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Izzy

[andromeda]

*cringe* Please go read Andromeda's post before I say something I regret...

Down girl...

[unreality]

While I'll never understand why some people are gay, I honestly don't have a problem with it. Who cares? Why shouldn't gay people get married? Any two (or three, is there a such thing as like a three-way marriage? lol ) people that love each other should be able to get a marriage, since it's crossed over the line and become a legal thing. You don't need a priest to get married, and whether your "married" in the religious sense doesn't matter as much as the union and whatnot. So, in short, I don't give a damn ;D

[Guest]

I don't think so!

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex. In fact 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality! (Only the animals that have been observed so that number will increase)

Homosexuality is perfectly natural!

Really? How can you base animal behavior on human behavior. This is kind of a third grade level debate in the sense "If he jumped off a bridge would you?" type of thing. Just because animals eat and slaughter each other, does that make it right for human's to do the same? Why not, its perfectly natural!!!!!

BTW...no offense to you andromeda, just arguing your train of thought. Also, keep making those treasure hunts!

[Guest]

She was only debating the statement "Homosexuality is unnatural." By definition, the things that animals do are natural. In order to behave in an unnatural manner requires sentient thought. Animals lack sentient thought, or at the very least lack a level of thought process that humans possess. Therefore, if you're going to talk about what is natural or not, animals are a good frame of reference.

To Unreality's statement, there are two vastly differing things that are associated with marriage. One of them is purely legal, one of them is purely religious. I agree, anyone should be allowed to obtain the legal benefits of a marriage, no matter their preferences (or reason, I suppose). However, I don't think taking "Marriage" away from the assorted religions is necessary. It was there thing to begin with, and I see no reason not to let it remain their thing. Just call the legal thing something different, and the issue disappears.

[unreality]

jrod: actually, we DO hunt and kill other animals. We are not cannibals like some animals, but the majority of animals aren't cannibals either. But we also hunt and mercilessly slaughter animals in disgusting and inhumane ways. It's just a reality. No offense jrod, but we are animals too

Edited December 9, 2008 by unreality

[Guest]

jrod: actually, we DO hunt and kill other animals. We are not cannibals like some animals, but the majority of animals aren't cannibals either. But we also hunt and mercilessly slaughter animals in disgusting and inhumane ways. It's just a reality. No offense jrod, but we are animals too

This is sort of off topic but...."I am not an animal!"

[Guest]

I am not one for saying what others should/not do - it's a personal thing as far as faith is concerned and a lot is to do with society and parenting. I have no faith in a supreme being/existence. I have very little faith in many of the governments of the various countries.

As for marriage - I hooked up with the mother of my children who I have known for 20 years and lived with for 16. Simple registration followed by coffee and apple pie. That was for legalities of coming from different countries (UK/NL), which made the will processes much simpler. Personally I don't care for marriage via government or faith. If you decide to be with some one then let it be the right reason, becoming good parents via birth or adoption should all be for the right reasons. Not a state requirement where one group benefit from a lawful/legal/holy promise. That said there are many absconding parents that run first and think later.. too many divorces/separations.

I think the theist/atheist topic is pretty much done in this forum or still being done elsewhere

As for gay - nothing to say really, it's again a very personal thing minority or majority, it won't change my behaviour or thinking. A person can be good or bad which ever sexuality.

[Guest]

Here's my personal opinion on marrriage:

Although by tradition religion has always been involved with marriage, traditionally religion has always been involved in a great many (too many) aspects of our lives. Religions have no means to dictate what marriage is or is not, since differing religions will inevitably have differing opinions, so to impose religious opinions on the rest of us would be as unworkable as it is unreasonable.

I would say there are potentially three aspects to what marriage is:

1) Religious. The exact significance of this may depend on the religion, and the choice of whether such a marriage can take place (some may disapprove of gay marriages, divorced people getting remarried, marriage outside the religion or whatever), also rests with the religion, or individual priest. If this puts undue pressure on people to conform to the requirements of their religion, they need to wise up and reject the religion. The religious will believe what they believe, and I don't feel that state interference in that matter is generally appropriate.

In the UK at least, it is very common to have a marriage with no religious element, and this is what I favour (that's the kind of marriage I had). There are plenty of great venues that offer wonderful wedding services of this nature. I don't know how it is in the USA, but if that is not an option, that's a shame. People should have freedom to choose the religious element of their marriage, or to not have a religious element at all. Marriage is not "owned" by religions, and in the end it is the state which has the final say over what kind of marriages can take place.

2) Legal. There is always the legal aspect to it, and that also varies from place to place, but it's an inevitable, if variable, element of what marriage is.

3) Personal. I'm surprised nobody has explicitly mentioned this. This is the important part! And I have to say I disagree with Izzy on this. If you want to show the world you love each other, do more kissing in public. Marriage is a serious business. It's a commitment for life, and that's a big deal. It means that the depth of your commitment is such that you are determined to stay together whatever happens, whatever changes. Even if your feelings change. If you only stay together as long as you feel like it, there is no need for marriage. But marriage says that the relationship is permanent, no matter what. That way you can make other commitments, like having children, in the knowledge that they will have a stable family. I know it doesn't always work out that way in practice, but that's the idea at least. All that is just my opinion, but I think many people get married for shallow reasons, like it's just a nice romantic gesture.

Now to gay marriage. Do I approve? Hell, yes! If two people love each other and are committed for life, that's all there is to it. I find it terribly sad that gay people are marginalized in this area (partly because of widespread religion, partly because of prejudice, and largely because of the two combined). And this idea of calling gay marriage something different, a "partnership" or "civil union" or whatever, is highly offensive to me. It's a form of social segregation, keeping certain people at a remove from normal, respectable society (we can't stop you doing what you're doing but we won't let you join our club). Some might say that this is not what marriage is meant to be, that it should be between people of opposite sex. But how can you make this judgement on behalf of others (and anybody who's about to wheel out some holy book for that, try thinking for yourself)? A person might just as well deem marriage to be undesirable if it occurs between people of different race. If someone thinks that's not how it's meant to be, that's their opinion but it stinks. Marriage is a bond between people that love each other. Gay people love each other. So what's the problem?

[Guest]

Whoa-kay there Octopuppy, there's nothing personal here, so no need to be offended. The point isn't about calling same sex vs. heterosexual marriage something different. It's about calling a legal vs. a religious union something different. The reason for that is that one of them is a legal binding, and the other is a spiritual one. Churches are allowed to hold whatever views they want on things like same sex marriage, and due to the separation of church and state it just makes sense to differentiate. This goes both for marriages that the church doesn't want to sanctify, and for couples that don't want a church interfering in their union.

[Guest]

Wait wait wait... what if you had a gay coulpe living right next to you? How would you feel about that???

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact i do have a gay couple who live next to me. in fact they have for the last 14 years. I basically consider them family. In addition, during the weeks i live with my uncles (yes plural) who are gay. I wrote a whol ethics term paper on same sex marriage and homosexuality and it is not a choice. Sure some people get curious that's normal. However, both my uncles and neighbors will tell you that when you're gay you're gay and that's it. My uncle knew he was gay at 10 and the other at 16. Sp those who say it's unnatural need to quit being so closed minded.

As for church and state.

Neither should get involved in making gay marriage illegal. if a church does not want to marry a gay couple that is the church's choice. however, it is not the government's right to take away the opportunity for two men or women to be married just like heterosexual couples. Gay couple have every right to be just as miserable as straight couples

[andromeda]

Gay couples have every right to be just as miserable as straight couples

You don't say much Impervious, but you always make a point

:lol:

Edited December 10, 2008 by andromeda

[Guest]

You don't say much Impervious, but you always make a point

:lol:

That's how I like it

[Guest]

The point isn't about calling same sex vs. heterosexual marriage something different. It's about calling a legal vs. a religious union something different.

I like this idea. As I mentioned earlier about UK having two parts to a wedding, why not have hetersexual couples go through two ceremonies, one for the law of the land and one for the law of the religion and (what I think SomeGuy is trying to say) call them different things. This will allow couples who want to marry for tax reasons (if there are any) to get unified by the law of the land and other couples who want to get unified in the eyes of the church (for 'personal' reasons <sorry, the only reason I can think of>) to get married in their religious ceremony.

The idea of separating them negates the problem set in the OP because the state will control their part and the religion will control their part. Problem solved.

[Guest]

Half of my friends are christians, the other half are total and complete athiests. And I'm a pagan. How do we do that? we are accepting of each other. Why isn't everyone like that with other religions? That would have stopped so many wars in our races past. And why not with gays? If a gay gets married, it doesn't affect any straight marriage at all! And the gay couple gets all the legal rights of being married, as well as being agle to say "oh yeah, we're married ". Marriage is a holy sacrament involving a man and a woman, you say. But what if that gay was once religious? shouldn't they be able to practice that sacrament as well?

And finishing off with a quote from crazypainter "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals.

This doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision."

Edited December 10, 2008 by Neptune'sObsoleteVersion

[Guest]

And finishing off with a quote from crazypainter "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals.

This doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision."

I loved that response. It actually made me chuckle. In part it is true, of the gay friends I have versus the straight friends. The gay friends have had less 'partners' (keeping it PG) than my straight friends, including myself.