We need comments for our report...
2007-09-12 02:09:23 · 14 answers · asked by ordreo 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In my religion, it's allowed. People who oppose it and try to make it illegal are giving their churches special rights and taking away rights from MINE.
Freedom of religion for all religions means those you oppose, too. If your church is against gay marriage-DON'T HAVE THEM THERE.
2007-09-12 02:14:54 · answer #1 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
My religion looks favorably upon it. Many homosexual people desire it. It's a civil right issued by the state and should be offered to all citizens. Marriage helps stabilize long term relationships. Nobody gets hurt by it. I can see no reason to not allow it.
EDIT: To those who prefer to call it a "civil union" I just ask you if you are not trying to dodge the issue and offer something less than marriage, which does not carry ALL the legal benefits of marriage. If the state grants it a license and someone else's religion prefers to call it a marriage, then I don't see how it matters what YOU prefer to call it.
My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony. Many religious people would prefer to not call that a marriage, either, because it did not have a religious sanction. Yet, it is a marriage under the law. Why the discrepancy?
2007-09-12 02:23:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian I would rather it be called a "Civil Union" only because I believe a marriage should be with a man and a woman. I do not object if there was a civil union between same sex couples getting the same benefits as married couples. But then I feel if there is a civil union that they should also need to have it desolved in the court system should the relationship go bad as with marriages.
2007-09-12 02:23:26 · answer #3 · answered by Awdrat 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to be as miserable as heterosexuals? Just kidding. But seriously, I do see nothing wrong with it.
And another thing, marriage is a legal contract, religion in the United States should have nothing to do with it. You don't need a priest or a minister or whatever to get married in this country, just a justice of the peace and city hall.
2007-09-12 02:39:02 · answer #4 · answered by BlueManticore 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a shame that we don't extend the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples. Civil unions should be just that; a commitment between two people without any religious or political interference. Denying people this basic right because of sexual orientation is wrong.
2007-09-12 02:28:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not my cup of tea, but some homosexual marriages (official ones or not) last much longer than heterosexual ones...some homosexual couples have been together for 25 years or more, some hetero ones barely last a year or thee.
2007-09-12 03:38:31 · answer #6 · answered by robert43041 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Marriage means family, having kids, and creating the next generation.
You cannot call a cow a horse, even though they both have four legs.
It is conflicting to nature, any way you look at it.
If your same sex excuse is love, then you are just like an adolesent who have sex in the name of "love", which really means "lust".
Some people reason that some same sex couple last longer that hetero sex couple. That is a misleading statement, that totally disregard there are many long lasting hetero sex couples around.
2007-09-12 08:01:42 · answer #7 · answered by Wahnote 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the hole point of marriage is to be recognized by god as a couple and to pledge your oath to each other in front of god
that is why there held at a church and as for the bible says homosexual is a sin how could a gay marrage take place
if your a christian it would make your religion a joke
2007-09-12 02:49:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is not something morally incorrect with 2 human beings of the comparable gender residing under one roof and sharing residing expenses and different household initiatives. it incredibly is morally incorrect for them to have interplay in comparable gender intercourse. the government is faulty in limiting particular reward to in straightforward terms male-lady enjoyed ones partnerships. If 2 human beings desire to form a enjoyed ones partnership under civil regulation, the difficulty of regardless of if or not they have intercourse should not be a element to a mundane government (in straightforward terms to non secular companies). The term "marriage" has been used for hundreds of years to describe the male-lady enjoyed ones partnership. it incredibly is a element of the heterosexual id (the two civil and non secular). it incredibly is not perfect for the LGBT community to scouse borrow that id as a shortcut to gaining particular reward. they could advance words that are particular to their variety of partnerships and then determine that all and sundry enjoyed ones partnerships (of which marriage may be one style) have the comparable reward.
2016-10-10 10:40:38 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Last I checked, homosexuals were people too. Therefore, they should be allowed to do the same things allowed to heterosexuals, including marry.
2007-09-12 02:16:05 · answer #10 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wonderful, it is against God's law. It is forbidden, it is disgusting and is not tolerated. You might see churches condeming this but trust me the Holy Spirit is not in that church it is a dead church with the candle light out. I really wish I could find the scripture that specifically says not to lay with another man.
2007-09-12 02:20:44 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋