about Atheist's getting married? Or Muslim's, or Taoist's, or Buddhist's, or Pagan's? Are these marriages less valid legally because your God didn't sanctify them? If upon succeeding in blocking the rights of these people to wed, who's rights are next?
2006-10-31 09:43:39 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Isn't it amazing that most of the naysayers miss the point completely?
Legislating religious doctrine gets us the Dark Ages. Personally I could do without the Dark Ages.
2006-10-31 12:12:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The problem that some people have is that their let their own religion's views on marraige taint their views on the concept as a whole. They think that, simply because the Christian of marraige forbids a certain something that *all* versions should.
Some people claim that a heterosexual marraige allows for all sorts of societal benefits, from producing more children to providing a stable society. Of course, we have nothing in place forcing people to have kids or preventing divorce... and if anyone thinks that a heterosexual marraige is such a rock-solid cornerstone of society, it's not wonder society is in such dire straights. There's so many dysfunctional families these days that we cannot claim that the "white-picket fence" dream is anything but a fantasy.
Society is based on stable relationships (no matter what genders are involved), and kids are nurtured and raised by love (no matter the number of genders of the parent(s)). That's all that counts. Trying to link those back to marriage is an attempt to obscure the issue.
2006-11-01 10:08:17 · answer #2 · answered by ArcadianStormcrow 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, also consider the fact that Buddhism, along with many other religions, does not prohibit homosexuality. Prohibiting any homosexual Buddhist couple from marrying could also be classified as an attack on freedom of religion. Christians seem to think that they have a monopoly on the term "marriage", something that is completely untrue. Marriage should be left up to religion to decide, not state. And if any religion sanctions a marriage, then the state has no right to stop that marriage from taking place...
2006-10-31 18:22:09 · answer #3 · answered by Shinkirou Hasukage 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Adam and Eve were the first innocent human beings. They were not perfect creatures, or esle they would not have sinned. However, they did not know sin (notice that the tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil).
What's my point? Simply this: they were not of a religious sect; they had no religion. They were the only people in the history of the world that walked with God (in an Anthropomorphism - i get it.) and enjoyed unbridled fellowship with Him.
Again. my point: in Genesis 2.24-26, the Bible gives the outline for what marriage should be. It has nothing to do with religious preference at this point. It was just a man and woman leaving their parents (adam and eve excluded due to their unfortunate lack thereof) and cleaving (hebrew word here means "to stick like glue") to one another.
Culturally we now have legal ramifications and benefits that come from marriage. Christians simply want the Biblical model to be followed. I hope that I am not sounding prejudice, and I CERTAINLY do not hate anyone; please hold your accusations.
hope that brings some understanding and clarity.
2006-10-31 18:01:31 · answer #4 · answered by κερυξω 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, these marriages are valid because they fall within the nature and the definition of "marriage". Same sex unions do not. And changing the legal definition won't change the nature of marriage.
Also, there is no reason for society to grant so-called "civil unions" the same rights as married couples. Why do you suppose governments grant such special considerations to married couples? Out of sheer generosity? Hardly! It is because marriages are the means by which society is regenerated, and stable families are the building blocks of any strong society. Government grants special considerations to married couples because married couples provide something that goverment and society need in order to survive. What do cohabiting homosexuals provide that they couldn't provide alone? What is the benefit to society? Why should they have the special considerations without the contribution to society?
2006-10-31 17:58:11 · answer #5 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Strangely, people who support the institution of traditional marriage would oppose two gay men who are professional business men and responsible members of their community from getting married. But they would support an out of work and uneducated man and women who were living on the street if they wanted to have a nice Christian wedding and have children.
Go figure,
A
2006-10-31 17:54:20 · answer #6 · answered by Alan 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
My opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs (which I don't have), but is based strictly on trying to preserve the meaning of the word in the language. I have no objection to "civil unions" to establish the sort of rights and responsibilities that married heterosexuals have, and consider that term to be appropriate nomenclature.
2006-10-31 17:58:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I disagree with gay marriage personally due to Biblical prohibitions.
However, Christians are encouraged in the Bible to follow and obey the laws of the lands in which we live.
My Christian beliefs oppose gay marriage based on the Bible.
My beliefs as a citizen of the USA are shaped by the laws of my country and State.
The sin issue is one thing: that's between God and the individual.
The illegality of gay marriage due to local and/or federal laws is enough for me to take a stand against it.
2006-10-31 17:55:38 · answer #8 · answered by Bob L 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Maoist, Taoist, Pagan, Muslim.... They wordhip a God and know how their religions deal with homosexuality, to put them in a class with gay marriage rights is absurd. My brother is gay. I don't believe in it. To me, it is sick. But, Christians... all Christians ( Gay and Straight) know what the bible says. When this country was founded, it was the bible that was used to frame our governmental system (I'm paraphrasing what I've learned to speed up my answer). I live in an unwedded union with a woman, my choice. Conventional marriage is in a decline (I've been divorced 20 years), so why would homosexuals be all that concerned about being married?
2006-10-31 17:58:16 · answer #9 · answered by steve 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yes! Exactly!
Even more, if the reason against gay marriage is their impossibility to have biological children of their own, what about couples who cannot have children for medical problems, and what about couples who get married when they're past their age to have children?
2006-10-31 17:47:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 0⤋