now im not a religious person but technically when men turn to men and women turn to women, that is supposed to be a sign of the comming apocalypse right? so how can the christian religion sanction gay marrage? shouldnt gay's look for another form of union with they're partner, ie. another religion? i dont think you can force a church to change they're ways because you dont agree with them, i think you need to find another belief that suits your lifestyle. am i wrong? as for the government i also dont see how they can have any implemention over the laws of the church. ie. sepparation of church and state. so i guess my question is, what is the debate?
2006-12-13 09:03:38 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
thank you i didnt know that marrage was a government contract, i always thought it was a ceramony done by the church you go to. obviously ive never been married. then yes i do belive gay marrage should be legalized by the federal government.
2006-12-13 09:41:32 · update #1
No one is trying to force any church to change their ways. We could care less if the church sanctions our marriages, but we do feel the government should recognize us and help us protect our relationships.
2006-12-13 09:21:12 · answer #1 · answered by Harry_Cox 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, I don't know all of the signs of the apocalypse but I don't remember hearing that that's one of them and I have had some religious education.
Second, marriage is not a christian institution. Marriage existed long before christianity and it will continue to exist with or without christians or christianity's support. Some people like the sanction of a marriage performed in a religious space but it's not necessary and it doesn't make the marriage any better or last any longer than those performed at the justice of the peace, on the beach, etc.
Third, as far as religions changing goes, religions have changed, they just tend to change slower than most people. Therefore, the church will eventually change and become more tolerant and open minded because if it doesn't it will eventually cease to exist. As people adapt and change, so must the institutions that rely on their support.
And Last, marriage as it is today is a secular institution which affords rights and priviledges to those who choose it. So, the state has every right to be involved in the debate over this issue since it is the state, and not the church, which gives us our rights. Further, since marriage rights are currently unequal, one day the government will catch up to that fact and that will change as well. Government, like churches, are reactive, not proactive. So it will take them some time to change and adapt to our current understandings and our newer information.
2006-12-13 17:31:00 · answer #2 · answered by jenn_smithson 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The deabate is over th institution of marriage, whether it is viable, and who should be entitld to join that club. Common law marriage was abolished years ago, today marriage has to be sanctioned and recognized by the state for obvious reasons, i.e wills, transfer of property and inheritance and all the rights associated with straight marriages.
The state is obligatd to protect all of it citizens and citizens rights, the church however is not obligated to protect the rights of citizens of a nation or nation state (because religous dogma dictates its own beliefs and expects every church member to comply), thus the confilict, between th church and state.
The paradox of the whole thing is that some politicians oppose gay marriage under the guise of protecting the citizen's (mainly relgious ones) freedoms, religous beliefs and practices. The ooposite can be argued by politicians who are proponents of gay marriage.
Based upon that analysis, the debate should be then, where do we draw the line.
My answer: in a democracy everyone is entitld to their freedoms and just rights regardless of religious or theological dogma. If that were not so, then the kkk (white extremist) would have a good argument for the extermination of minorities under their religous dogma..
Something to think about...
2006-12-13 19:03:56 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The sign is when *straight* men turn to other men.
As for the debate... the issue isn't so much about government influencing the laws of the church, but the other way around: prohibiting gay marriage is allowing the church to influence the laws of the government.
I have no problem with a church refusing to perform the ceremony. I do have a problem with a church demanding that the government not recognize ceremonies performed by *other* faiths that hold to a different belief. The issue of secular recognition of marriage is one that should be decided on secular grounds, not religious ones.
2006-12-13 17:46:01 · answer #4 · answered by angiekaos 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well for a start, in the western world the church DOES NOT make laws!!! Laws are made by the government and the church has to abide by them. Im gay and if i decide to marry my partner i don't want it done by some pasty faced homophobic priest. Besides there's nothing wrong with gay marriage - look at how many law-suites the roman catholic church is receiving because of their pedophile priests!!
Just for the record, the apocalypse is not coming. No matter what the church says.
2006-12-13 17:14:09 · answer #5 · answered by theguyintelford 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one. That's why atheists can get married, and there are inter-religious marriages as well. Thusly why religion should keep it's nose out of politics.
The law would not force any church to marry anyone (although I know of five different ones in my area alone that would be happy to give me a ceremony in their building), but simply give them the right to file for the contract.
Also, I'd like for you to find the verse that says that gay marriages would be a sign of the coming apocalypse. I've been through three different versions of the bible and can't seem to find it.
2006-12-13 17:19:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not aware of any demand that churches change their stance on performing marriages. The gay marriage issue is about gay couples receiving the same list of legal and financial benefits that straight couples receive from the secular government recognizing their relationships. Gays don't need to force hostile churches to change their marriage policies when there are already plenty of gay-affirming churches.
2006-12-13 17:20:20 · answer #7 · answered by Throbington Steifenholz 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't have any inclination to be married in a Catholic church even if they did perform such marriages!
I was raised Catholic and I believe that I am a good gay Christian person because of my actions towards others. I don't go to church on Sunday as I find my Lord in my everyday life.
Jesus said "Lift a rock and I am there, split a log and you shall find me". One does not need to go to a church, temple etc. to find your Savior.
I prefer to go to a gathering of like minded, excepting people for my marriage to my partner.
2006-12-13 17:21:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know what, i agree with your point. And im a lesbian. I dont necessarily want the "Church" to ordain a marriage between my partner & I. Why should I, when this the same "Church" that excludes me & hates me so much? I want the STATE & GOVERNMENT to be aware of of it and look at it is something legal & binding. I dont give 2 s.hits about the church. Most of them are hipocrites anyway.
2006-12-13 17:08:07 · answer #9 · answered by Raynebow_Diva 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually I think most christian religions don't sanction gay marraige but rather condemn it. Which is why it shouldn't be up to the church to sanction marraige it should be up to the government.
2006-12-13 17:10:12 · answer #10 · answered by *Cara* 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋