Is it your stance that you will always actively oppose recognizing the legal union of two men or two women, because your personal religious dogma tells you that it's wrong?
2007-10-30 07:14:54 · 29 answers · asked by Samurai Jack 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Hope - I didn't mean to make it sound "bad". It is personal religious dogma. That phrase must carry a certain connotation. Not all personal religious dogma agrees with this.
2007-10-30 07:20:59 · update #1
Nope. I am not gay. . .so I don't think I have the right to oppose something, that causes no harm, and has nothing to do with me. Why should I be able to be married and tell someone else it is wrong for them. . . .I just can't find that right in my heart.
2007-10-30 07:18:39 · answer #1 · answered by sparkles9 6 · 13⤊ 9⤋
I think this is a tough one. I believe homosexuality is immoral (there, I said it). I also believe judging others is immoral, so I don't go around telling gays they're going to hell (only God knows that).
So, I am a believer that committed, monogomous gay couples should recieve the same benefits as straight married couples.
Marriage? Marriage is a religious institution, and most religions are against homosexuality. Yes, religion may be the only reason that gay marriage is not allowed in the U.S., but one has to keep in mind that our law system is based on the English Commonlaw system, which was based on the Bible.
So I guess my rambling has led me to this conclusion: It really doesn't matter to me if gay marriage is legalized or not. I don't think there is any inequality in the laws right now. I will certainly not protest if same-sex marriages are legalized, nor will I march to have them legalized. I believe the real decision rests in the hands of a higher power.
2007-10-30 09:33:28 · answer #2 · answered by hottieredhead69 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
1 b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
1 c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union
So even if you do not accept definition 1a,sub.2, you have to accept definition 3 and could therefore apply definition 3 to same sex couples, could you not?
2007-10-30 08:22:27 · answer #3 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
coverage corporations would not be required to furnish advantages to gay couples (married or no longer). whilst coverage is bought, a freelance is written detailing precisely what the duties of the insurer are. in the event that they did no longer elect to cover a gay better half, they could merely write that into the contract. next time you attempt to cajole persons that Christians are actually not the main opposition to gay marriage, you're able to a minimal of do a minute or 2 of study in the past.
2016-11-09 20:46:49 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since marriage can only be between a man and a woman, why should christians concern themselves with gay marriages? These are counterfeit marriages that only exist in a decadent society. A true man will not lay down with another man; and a true woman will not expose herself to another female. How then can two males (or two females) consider themselves to be married? And why would I acknowledge them as such, when the very idea of them being married is foolish? Seriously. Why would I waste time with such foolishness? Only a corrupt mind would be so involved.
2007-10-30 07:29:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
*sigh*
There was a time when interracial marriage was equally opposed.
In fifty years, gay marriage won't even be an issue. It will exist, and people will accept it. Thank the Gods for that.
2007-10-30 10:31:42 · answer #6 · answered by prairiecrow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes...and just to add a couple of things too...people say we are judging the person but we are not. We are judging the sin!
2007-10-30 07:28:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Christians don't have to try and block. It's already done and will continue to be not recognizable because it's a unnatural act whether it's personal or religious etc...
Shalom
2007-10-30 07:25:51 · answer #8 · answered by Pashur 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I plan to follow God's Word
His Word says homosexuality is wrong
I will fight for Family Values.........Yes, I am against gay marriage and also against domestic partnership benefits......
1st Corinthians 6: 9-10
read
2007-10-30 07:31:58 · answer #9 · answered by kenny p 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Doesn't the Bible also say not to judge people? I will never understand how people can decide that they should have some kinda say so or judgement over others and what they choose to do with their lives. That doesn't seem very Christian at all to me.
2007-10-30 07:22:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋
I do not oppose recognizing their union. Civil unions are fine with me. I oppose rewriting the definition of marriage to include those that marriage does not belong to.
2007-10-30 07:22:18 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋