alright so homosexuals want to get married right and marriage is a holy sacromony in such which is the problom people think of.
well anyways there are 2 types of marriages the TRUE marriage the early ones which are done by priest is known as a holy holy marriage. then there is the cival marriage which can be done by anyone liscensed called a cival marriage why dont we call these 2 different things like have cival marriages which is what homosexuals marriages get and call it something anything so we wont have the the problom with gay marriages or am i totally off on the wrong idea what is your guys opinions
2006-08-02 05:16:55 · 12 answers · asked by lztexan 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Well, I don't really want to make anyone mad, but i'm against gay marriges 4 1 thing, n 4 another thing, no offense, but what the heck r u talkin' about??!!
2006-08-02 05:23:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because we've already learned in this country that "separate but equal" doesn't work. Why is it you assume that two gays who wish to marry wouldn't want a religious ceremony? I know many religious gay people. I also know a few gay couples that have been "married" in an accepting church, but can't do so legally. If you get married in church and don't register it with the state you are not married in the eyes of the law, no matter how "holy" you think that marriage is. I'm not trying to be mean, but delve a little deeper into thought on this one, your prejudice is showing.
2006-08-02 05:41:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if you need to differentiate between different types of marriage and call one holy and the other a civil marriage "which can be done by anyone liscensed" then you obviously are insecure and feel the need to make yourself special. I don't think I'm any more or less special than gay people, so I don't I think whatever marriage is available, should be available to everyone.
2006-08-02 05:23:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Civil marriage by a judge is exactly what homos are looking for. This type of marriage gives all the legal rights. Many straight couples opt for this method of marriage every day.
And, let the individual religious institutions decide if they want to perform religious weddings or not. The government should not tell the churches/synagogues/mosques what to do.
If the USA truly had separation of church and state, this wouldn't be an issue.
2006-08-02 05:29:44 · answer #4 · answered by bikerchickjill 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually marriages were simple civil contracts with no church involvement until about the 12th century, when the church started to sanctify them as a means of strengthening the church.
So let's work with your concept. Let's say that any couple desiring to be married and have all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage have to enter into a civil contract, which is recorded by the city, county or state. Every marriage would require this.
Then optionally, they could go to a church to have a church ceremony to sanctify the union in accordance with their faith. Any given faith tradition, denomination or local congregation could within the rules of their tradition and internal political organization decide what marriage would be allowed in their church. Catholics and Southern Baptists could decide that they wanted only male-female weddings, while the Methodists could decide to also allow same-sex marriage.
The civil marriage would be recognized everywhere, because we take separation of church and state seriously, and only the civil marriage is of concern to the legal authorities, tax collectors, and persons who oversee our rights.
What could be more fair?
2006-08-02 06:07:21 · answer #5 · answered by michael941260 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The laws really vary on marriage from state to state. The fads also have a hard time stepping in because many deem marriage as an area delegated to the states based on the constitution.
2006-08-02 08:39:36 · answer #6 · answered by carora13 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not all marriages are "holy." plenty of straight people have civil ceremonies.
what I don't understand is, why do straight people feel so threatened by gays/lesbians wanting to get married? how will us getting married hurt the sanctity of marriage? look at how so many straight people make a mockery of marriage! I mean seriously, how could we do any worse? and how does it hurt straight people directly? unless they're just homophobes and just simply hate us....which is true in most cases...
2006-08-02 06:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by redcatt63 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How paranoid does a straight person have to be to be against gay marriage? Why do they tell the lie that allowing gays to marry somehow harms the institution of marriage?
2006-08-02 05:34:19 · answer #8 · answered by happytraveler 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what most people tend to forget is that America is a melting pot with many different cultures and religious traditions. Give me a "civil marriage" so I can get the rights accorded straight folks, that's fine. I will then proceed to my own church and get my own minister to "holy marry" us, in accordance with our faith.
Let's start a fight: proper baptism: sprinkle or dunk? who's right? my church says dunk, and to say otherise is blasphemy!
this should be fun.
2006-08-02 05:56:53 · answer #9 · answered by tkdeity 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YO DAWG GAY PEEPS CAN GET MARRIED BY CIVIL UNION BUT IT AINT RECOGNIZED BY DA LAW SO DEY DONT GET DA BENEFITS DAT STRATE PEEPS DO
EDIT: BTW DAWG CHRISTIANITY/JUDAISM AINT DA FIRST RELIGION TO HAVE MARRIAGE YO
2006-08-02 05:22:10 · answer #10 · answered by 1337 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋