Marriage is a religious thing - should homosexual union bother that religion, then we shouldn't make them change their religion and its institutions.
Marriage should, however, be purely religious and have no legal effects what-so-ever.
Make it all a civil union, and then don't discriminate as then there [i]really[/i] is no argument against equality.
Make marriage the activity of the religious - a union under whichever God is relevant, and nothing more. Just two people proving their love in front of their fellow believers. A nice day and all, but no tax breaks.
Take the religion out of union and voila, who can complain? It goes against no-ones religious beliefs. Sure there is still the issue of gay couples not being able to have their union recognised by their religious institution, but at least the state isn't colluding in the issue.
English
-
I'm a christian and believe homosexuality is a sin. But I don't think it's a legal issue, so, yeah, I'd really love it if anything government related were removed from marriage, and then all the rights were just tied to civil unions or whatever. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind it that much if the system remained how it was and gay's were allowed to be legally married. I think they are in the wrong for doing so, but I think they are already in the wrong for living by their homosexual feelings, and I don't think I can show them the love of Christ by fighting tooth and nail to keep them out of [i]my[/i] institution and dictating to them how to live.
-
Marriage is an act between two people to be "pure" to only that other person and a commitment to them. It was not originally a religious thing. There are more things then just a tax break, for example visiting a loved one in the hospital. Only direct family or married spouse, gays cant visit. Also the want to get married because of the tax break and have a showing commitment. separate but equal =/= equal. Your response isn't that very intelligent and can be more easily refuted if I felt like using more then a quarter of my brain.
-
lol, ur cute
-
Please explain why mr.
-
Edited by RIP delta: 5/3/2013 4:19:33 AMI make like a 2 and a bit paragraph post (for clarity I wrote a much bigger complaint email today on the spur of the moment) that clearly was half arsed that you seemed to take exception to. The part you chose to pick up on was arguably the most tongue in cheek part of it ("a nice day and all, but no tax breaks"). The crux of your argument is that what I said could be refuted with a quarter of your brain, either implying that what I said was extraordinarily flawed or you're extraordinarily smart, either way the cute part is that you attempted to make me look stupid, and you smart, which is adorable. You made no real points yourself besides the glaringly obvious then went all high and mighty. Lazy as my original point was, by giving the religious their own marriages that legally mean nothing, and having state endorsed civil unions/partnerships, you at least eradicate the state collusion in inequality and preserve an element of religious freedom. The only thing you said was "They don't [i]just[/i] get a tax break" yet you still chose to insult my argument...which is cute. People on Bungie wanting to be super smart and all... its cute in a 'aww look at that puppy trying to bite that kitty' sort of way - great fun to look at, and really of no threat to anybody.
-
What if that gay person is religious like Clay Aiken?
-
Marriage predates religion.
-
So? Currently the argument against gay-marriage revolves around religious points, and that is the only argument that can be drawn upon without just espousing things like "I don't like gays so they shouldn't have the same rights as me". As it is, married couples enjoy benefits to marriage. Were this not the case, I wouldn't give a shit if gay couples couple marry, as the only problem would be hurt feelings - not government sponsored inequality. If you have marriage as a purely religious or purely legal institution, then the problem is solved either way
-
I am a Christian and I am willing to submit to this action.