if gays believe that god ( or their god ) DOES accept gay marriage, then why should we undermine their interperetation on god in favour of conservitave christians belief on god and the bible?
in simpler terms, if gays believe god wants them to get married, how can we say "no"? Wasnt this country (U.S.) built on religious acceptance and equality?
2007-05-21 10:42:05 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
eeek
2007-05-21 10:46:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
First of all...marriage is NOT a religious institution. If it were, it'd be illegal for atheists to marry, since they don't have any religious affiliation.
Secondly...marriage is an arrangement between the state and the federal government and 2 people. The state and federal government grants those 2 individuals certain benefits not allowed to unmarried couples. In return, those couples agree to pay the state money for a marriage license.
Try getting a legally binding marriage for free from the state. It's not going to happen. The state wants your money. Sure the marriage may be legal in God's eyes, but it won't be legal in the states eyes without a marriage license...which costs money.
Legalizing gay marriage would bring more money into the state in the way of legal marriage licenses, and if a gay marriage offends some, then that's on them...not the gay couple getting married.
People who claim that a "civil union" is enough and should make gay couples happy, are obviously unfamiliar with the term "Separate but equal is NEVER equal."
2007-05-21 10:59:49 · answer #2 · answered by Adam G 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
Historically, people's misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death. We must be open to new truth from Scripture. The Bible is a book about God -- not a book about human sexuality. We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex. The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.
Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for truth, we are to "love one another."
The Bible says...
The Bible is not the law of the land. Period. The First Amendment to the US Constitution, regardless of whether you like it, forbids entanglement of religion with the state. That is why it admonishes that Congress cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion [emph. added]. Laws must have a secular pupose. Laws may not cause excessive entanglement with religion. Clearly limiting marriage to heterosexuals for the sake of something the Bible says would breach the limitations laid out in the First Amendment.
Incidentally, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies the limitations set forth in the Constitution to the states.
And as Reverend Lovejoy once said in The Simpsons, "The bible says a lot of things." The bible condemns everything from eating shellfish to wearing clothing of blended fibers to touching a woman during her menstrual period to allowing women to speak at church. Most people preaching against homosexuality from the Bible just take a verse or two out of context, cherry picking what they need to justify their prejudices, while ignoring other "condemned" things entirely.
You want to redefine the fundamental unit of our society!
Does this mean that single people and children have no place in society? Our social order is comprised only of married people? This is laughably untrue.
The definition of "marriage" has never been static in any case, and at any given moment, different people already have different ideas of what it means. In some cultures marriages are still arranged. In the past, marriages have been used to end wars or seal treaties. It was once expected that the father of a bride would be paid a dowry for the privilege of marrying her. In the early 20th century it was unheard of to have two working parents, but by the end of the 20th century it was common. Definitions and ideas change over time.
The atomic unit of a society is the individual.
2007-05-21 11:13:48 · answer #3 · answered by sarah 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it was a religious institution, I think so. There would still be people running around screaming how wrong it was, but I'm sure there would be the minister or two who would perform the marriages.
But it's not a religious institution. And yet the state refuses to allow gay marriage. Why? Because of religion. Just goes to show how separate state and church really are.
2007-05-21 10:51:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
If the argument is made that marriage is solely a religious institution, nations like the U.S. which have a separation of religion and state have no grounds on which to legislate marriage.
Therefore, should that argument be successful, legal marriage must be abolished throughout the U.S. for all couples.
2007-05-21 10:56:08 · answer #5 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why isn't marriage a religious institution? And I don't have a problem with gays getting married.
2007-05-21 10:50:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In the absence of the Big Cheese in the Sky stopping in to tell us how he feels about it, I'm afraid we'll have to make laws that AREN'T based solely on religion.
And Jan, there's nothing wrong with men wearing pink nighties and kissing each other. Fondling in public would be a bit inappropriate. Still, your answer betrays your bigotry. There isn't one "right" way to live. That is what you people fail to understand.
2007-05-21 10:47:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Sure. Gay Christians interpret the bible to their favour just as straight Christians interpret it their own way.
You can find a passage that either directly or vaguely will support just about any position you can put forward.
2007-05-21 10:47:39 · answer #8 · answered by blooz 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
if the gay church of (name town here) wants to do marriages for male couples nothing stops them
that doesn't give it any legal standing, just as a cult that has it's leader have marriages to a dozen 10 year olds has no legal standing (and i am NOT say gays are evil, cultists, or childish.....just saying where we'd have to end up going if we allowed everything based on religion)
it's a legal issue, not a religious one
2007-05-21 10:50:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If they say it that way o.k. The problem comes from interpretation. The same book that says "gay" is a sin is the same book that "Gays" use to prove there worthiness to marry.
2007-05-21 10:54:14 · answer #10 · answered by j.wisdom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this is why i dont think the state should have anything to do with anyone's marriage (as well the vast majority of a person's life in general).
people will define things however they want to, irregardless of state intervention; and since my religion will never allow gay marriage; i dont really care. hey, its not like i give much credence to las vegas shot gun marriages either (gay straight or whatever)
2007-05-21 10:49:31 · answer #11 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋