Non-religious heterosexual marriages are legal. If gays don't marry through a church, mosque or synagogue, how

Question

does the "religious institution" apply?

I got this question off of another users website and think the question is valid and wonder what your responses to it might be:
http://www.freewebs.com/humanity22

Answer 1

Exactly.

I don't have a problem with Churches not performing gay marriages if they object on moral grounds, but the government should not be discriminating agains gays who want to legitimise their relationship inthe form of a civil marriage.

Answer 2

Seems you do not understand the debate. The issue is not where or who officiates a ceremony, it is the definition of who the participants are. If you can call a relationship between a man and a sheep a marriage then you have just ruined the entire concept of "marriage". Ditto for gay unions. This idea was tried before , long ago, and looking back on it many people do not like the results they see.The issue is are we going to not only allow but protect a deal that will result in a lower birthrate and no societal cohesion?

Answer 3

I'm not sure what exactly you are referencing when you asked how the "religious institution" applies, but here is my view on homosexual marriage. I believe homosexual acts in any form are wrong, but what people do in their private homes is none of my business so long as it is kept in their private homes. When you go to get a marriage license, you are asking permission of the US government, and by extension the American people, to marry. Well, frankly, I don't approve and neither do the majority of the American people. So in many ways, it has very little to do with religion, it has to do with the principles this country was founded on (morality) as well as with many legal issues.

Answer 4

People whether gay or straight can get legally married in non-religious ceremonies. They can be married by a Justice of the Peace, A Mayor, a ships Captain etc.

Answer 5

Lets see nature defines a relationship as one that can further the human race. Being gay just means that through natural selection your no longer attracted to the opposite sex so you cant breed, or your line will be continued no more. So if nature says that two people of the same sex can reproduce, then I will approve of gay marriage, until then I dont care who gets married to who as long as its a man to a woman.

Homosexuality a sexual orientation characterised by lasting aesthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for others of the same sex or gender. Meaning that they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex at all, meaning they cant reproduce, meaning that through natural selection their specific line of genes is not to be carried on. Same thing with impotent men and barren women your obviously at the weaker end of the gene pool and nature sees no point in your line continuing to pollute the gene pool any further. Same gender sex in nature is in most the part a show of dominance and not an animals sole sexual attraction. Show me one stud who smelling a ***** in heat wont mate. Unless your suggesting that humans arent subject to the same laws of nature as everything else, and somehow we can reproduce by having same sex sex.

Answer 6

i have no idea what the question is. it sounds like you're talking about non marriages. Please clarify

i have to add this, there is plenty of same gender sexual activity in nature. anyone who claims homosexuality is "against nature" needs to get out of the cave and do a little research.

Answer 7

Good for you, but it's hard to have a sensible debate about his issue.

Prejudiced people always start from their feelings of revulsion (caused by fear) and then try to justify it, by saying 'God said so' or 'The Bible says so'.

They'll never really be able to rationally explain their position.

Answer 8

As of now they aren't legal through the government, which is what all the fight is about.