Same Sex Marriage

Is there anyone who thinks that same sex marriage should be illegal? Why? Those of you who think it should be legalized: what do you think of DOMA and same sex marriage in general?

DOMA : Defense of Marriage Act, Clinton 1996, prohibits federal recognition of same sex marriages.

People that are against it are usually hardcore religious. Saying that marriage is a religious institution. But that's not entirely true. I don't mind because it really doesn't effect me at all. Even if my brother were to get married to another guy I wouldn't mind that much.

It's their choice, not ours.

[Scott]

Good topic.

From a legal point-of-view, I want consenting adults to be able to enter into any deal they want. If consenting adults want to legally agree to share all their property, to share custody of their kids, to make each other the beneficiary of inheritance upon death and legal rights upon incapacitation. (For example, if one goes unconscious or dies, generally a civil marriage gives the associated legal rights to the spouse instead of the next of kin.) At the very least, I do not think anyone can support free-trade and oppose the civil marriage of consenting adults, regardless of their race, religion, gender, etc.

From a religious point-of-view, I definitely do not think any religion forced to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. For example, if a certain religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony on people of a different race, then that is their choice. If a certain religious institution refuses to perform a religious ceremony on people of the same gender, then that's there choice. If a man chooses to perform a marriage ceremony on his TV and his fireplace, then that's his choice. I want the practice of religious ceremonies and the rules of a privately formed religious groups to be left up to the participants. A religious ceremony has no legal value in and of itself because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

We have to make note of the significant distinction between civil marriage (i.e. a legal agreement between people that is recognized by a government) and ceremonial or religious marriage (i.e. a ceremony performed by religious people with the purpose of being recognized by a religious organization of which someone is a part).

In a free society, a person's priest does not have to perform a religious ceremony if he does not want to perform it. He can if he does.

As far as civil marriage goes, that is merely a legal agreement between people. I do not see how anyone who supports freedom cannot support letting any two people make such a legal agreement assuming they are both mentally competent adults who have voluntarily consented.

Mainly, the disagreement over "gay marriage" seems to be due to the equivocation resulting from the word marriage, in that it is being used to refer to both civil marriage and religious marriage. I think the most agreeable solution would be to call all legal marriages civil unions. In other words, same-sex marriages would not be the only ones called civil unions. As far as the government would be concerned, all legal "marriages" (be they homosexual or heterosexual) will be called civil unions. Then, private citizens can perform (and religious organizations can refuse to perform) whatever ceremonies they wish.

In analogy, when a Catholic family gets a legal divorce, their Churches often still consider them 'married' in the "eyes of god." The Church would consider it adultery and sinful if one of the people got legally married to someone else and had sex with that person. That's their prerogative as far as I am concerned. But we all need to make note of the difference between legal marriage and civil marriage, just as we make the distinction between civil divorce and religious divorce.

Well, the amusing factor is that the only real opposition for Same Sex Marriage appears to be 'redneckian' or 'Christian'. Often, the first is because of the latter, but I wanted to say it. The only issue with this is that no matter how many biblical apologists make an attempt at it, there was never a designation for sexual orientation being right or wrong.

The commonly used excuse is:
"it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman" in the book of Leviticus, but the unfortunate part is most of these are quoted from a Sunday School Version bible. In the Talmud I have sitting here, it says 'While' and not 'As'. This is also unfortunate, due to the fact that every other law of Leviticus is blatantly ignored by the mass of Christianity who do not want to be stoned to death for calling Jesus Christ the Messiah, and other various issues...Such as the fact that the bible, explicitly, tells you that if any man claims to be the messiah, or if any man claims that another is the Messiah, to stone them both to death... same book.

Also:
Deuteronomy 22:13-21, basically tells us to Stone any virgin who has the audacity to get married...

So pretty much it comes down to the fact that the Christian populace takes the laws of the old testiment they want to and claim that they still count, but all of the rest of them which would generally require the Stoning or Torture of the common Christian no longer count.

Basically it is persecution, using a book that if taken to its fullest extent, would mean the persecution of those guilty of commiting it in the first place. Homosexual marriages are just marriages, whether for tax purposes or for sex.

Also, the bible tells you explicitly what the 'correct manner' for a man and woman to have sex are, and I can assure that no man will stick his penis in another man's vagina, as he would a woman.

Abiathar is, sadly, mistaken in his understanding of Christianity. Sorry, I have the utmost respect for you and your thorough understanding of other religions, but you do not fully understand what the Evangelic Christian church believes.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The act of homosexuality is depicted, blatantly, as wrong.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

And again, the same.

Both quotations are from the New Testament.

This is also unfortunate, due to the fact that every other law of Leviticus is blatantly ignored by the mass of Christianity who do not want to be stoned to death for calling Jesus Christ the Messiah...

Christianity is based on Jesus being the Messiah. Why would they be stoned for acknowledging that?

... and other various issues...Such as the fact that the bible, explicitly, tells you that if any man claims to be the messiah, or if any man claims that another is the Messiah, to stone them both to death... same book.

Correct, the Bible explicitly says that. However Jesus made it quite clear that much of the law was fulfilled in His teaching:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Furthermore, Jesus set a standard of not harming others.

You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Aside from that, I think homosexual marriages should be legal. Telling people what they can and cannot do is not part of true Christianity. Love is the center of it, and any Christian who is against legalizing homosexual marriage is off the mark.

However, any church or pastor who refuses to marry a homosexual couple should be free to do so. The homosexuals should have their freedom, as they deserve, and so should the ministers.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The act of homosexuality is depicted, blatantly, as wrong.

Untrue actually, the act of being a homosexual is not being depicted as wrong. Read my next comment and you'll see why...

... nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

And again, the same.

Homosexual offenders doesn't necessarily refer to homosexuals themselves. In Ancient Hebrew law homosexuality was not "condemned" as it may seem like it was. In fact , both homosexuals and heterosexuals were required to follow codes of sexual gratification. Basically, you couldn't have anal sex. Now as we may know, homosexual men seem to be stuck with basically anal and oral sex, but those who were caught participating in non-kosher anal sex were homosexual offenders. however, even heterosexual couples who engaged in anal sex would be under the jurisdiction of this law.

Interesting comment. I have never looked much at the Old Testament books of law. Could you please cite where you've found this information?

Untrue actually, the act of being a homosexual is not being depicted as wrong

I made a clear distinction between the the act of homosexuality and the state of sexual preference. It is the former, as I understand it, that is wrong.

Interesting comment. I have never looked much at the Old Testament books of law. Could you please cite where you've found this information?

Untrue actually, the act of being a homosexual is not being depicted as wrong

I made a clear distinction between the the act of homosexuality and the state of sexual preference. It is the former, as I understand it, that is wrong.

Yes ( on citations ), well first off I'm Jewish so I kind of just know off the bat, but a more reliable source can be found here:

The other relevant laws are in I Corinthians 6.9-10 and I Timothy 1.9-10, which specifically condemn malakoi, a term most often applied to men who take the receptor role during anal intercourse, not very correctly translated as "effeminate men"; and arsenokoitai, a term most often applied to men who perform the insertor role during anal intercourse, not very correctly translated as "abusers of themselves with men." Koitai means "to lie with"; arseno may come from the Ionic arsen, meaning "man, to be made wet with semen" or from the Doric orson, meaning "****, buttocks". Romans 1.27 condemns mean who "leave the natural use of the woman, and burn in their lust one toward one another," which may relate primarily to heterosexual men who go gay in a deliberate rebellious attempt to be perverse and lecherous, etc. Romans 1.26 condemns "women who change the natural use into that which is against nature," which is extremely vague and probably refers to non-conventional heterosexual practices or positions. Biblical scholars tend to agree that lesbianism is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. The Talmud, however, mentions lesbianism, considering it as a mere obscenity that disqualifies a lesbian from later marrying a priest.

this is from: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho1.htm ( a history of homophobia )

The only good thing that could come of this is to deregulate marriage compleatly no legal benifits/contracts for any unions. Go ahead get married!

[Scott]

I do not have the biblical expertise to debate how much, if any, the Christian Bible and other religious texts condemn homosexuality.

Nonetheless, I wish to ask, does it affect what we want the legal status of same sex marriage to be? I know I do not want laws based upon what any given religion's texts say or what any given religion says is immoral. If the Bible said that eating chocolate cake was immoral and that eaters of chocolate cake should be stoned to death, would any of you want to criminalize the eating of chocolate cake? I would not.

I suppose the attempt to criminalize same sex marriage or to keep it criminalized is most often an attempt to advance or retain theocracy. I oppose theocracy, so I oppose criminalizing same sex marriage regardless of what the Bible or any other religious text says.

I do not have the biblical expertise to debate how much, if any, the Christian Bible and other religious texts condemn homosexuality.

Nonetheless, I wish to ask, does it affect what we want the legal status of same sex marriage to be? I know I do not want laws based upon what any given religion's texts say or what any given religion says is immoral. If the Bible said that eating chocolate cake was immoral and that eaters of chocolate cake should be stoned to death, would any of you want to criminalize the eating of chocolate cake? I would not.

I suppose the attempt to criminalize same sex marriage or to keep it criminalized is most often an attempt to advance or retain theocracy. I oppose theocracy, so I oppose criminalizing same sex marriage regardless of what the Bible or any other religious text says.

I agree, but there are many people who still think that this is a Christian nation and will continue to build laws around that ideology.

Nonetheless, I wish to ask, does it affect what we want the legal status of same sex marriage to be?

It doesn't, no, and I'm sorry if I came across the wrong way with that. I was saying two separate things earlier when I went into Biblical texts. Initially I had wanted to clarify what the Bible actually said, as I disagreed quite firmly with Abiathar's view of Christianity. Apparently, I need to catch up on my Greek.

Aside from that, I think homosexual marriages should be legal. Telling people what they can and cannot do is not part of true Christianity.

That is my actual take on the subject.

What nonsense of philosphical enquiry is this?

Not one of you has thought outside the dodecahedron. Not one of you is wise enough, knowledgeable enough, or brave enough to explore a debate outside of your preferred opinion.

Not I... no, no, no... I have the brains and the gumption.

On the matter of marriage, I do not understand why homosexuals want for it. It is an archaic form of womanly control and assurance of progengy created by men for men. What good does such an institution serve the homosexuals, but none?

Until recently women were best served in life through the security of marriage as they had very little rights or protections outside of it.

Now however, women have all the rights of men and consequentially, marriage has less influence in a womans life. Women don't need marriage to have children nor to secure their place in the world. Indeed, many women forgo marriage in their formation of relationships.

So why are homosexuals, wanting what women are turning away from?

If it is merely a matter of property, then let us reform the laws for all kinds of relationship... but marriage?

It's a nonsense.

What nonsense of philosphical enquiry is this?

Not one of you has thought outside the dodecahedron. Not one of you is wise enough, knowledgeable enough, or brave enough to explore a debate outside of your preferred opinion.

Not I... no, no, no... I have the brains and the gumption.

On the matter of marriage, I do not understand why homosexuals want for it. It is an archaic form of womanly control and assurance of progengy created by men for men. What good does such an institution serve the homosexuals, but none?

Until recently women were best served in life through the security of marriage as they had very little rights or protections outside of it.

Now however, women have all the rights of men and consequentially, marriage has less influence in a womans life. Women don't need marriage to have children nor to secure their place in the world. Indeed, many women forgo marriage in their formation of relationships.

So why are homosexuals, wanting what women are turning away from?

If it is merely a matter of property, then let us reform the laws for all kinds of relationship... but marriage?

It's a nonsense.

Unless you are a homosexual who is eager to marry your life partner I don't think that you or anyone for that matter can bring up that point. If they want to get married leave that to their feelings and their opinions. I see what you're saying, and yes marriage was a form of subjugation to women, but like I said unless you are a homosexual it's almost unfair or even wrong for you to say that.

You are not a homosexual, you are not a heterosexual. People live and choose to do things-whats wrong with that!
1st off I think its dogma, and if you you don't agree with that maybye you'll agree that society won't let this fake hetero/homo thing go and is beating it into the ground holy sh%t. Jerk off onto a painting of a tree!! "what about art?"