Gay "marriage"

No, it was originally a social, legal and religious construct. The need for recognition of gay marriage stems from the legal aspect (although social is also important). The only opposition to it i've ever heard was on religious grounds.

I'd also like to hear a better definition of 'the sanctitiy of marriage'. Is this one of those nebulous concepts that people throw around when what they really mean is 'things as defined by my religion'?

Its not the religion that is against it usually, its the person who is stating that "Christ doesn't allow gay marriage" is the one with the problem. They are just trying to use their religion as a tool to stop something that they think is wrong (ha) because of its unifieing(sp?) quality.

What do "you" feel about it?

When the third one is God, He has a history of of being jealous and wrathful and smiting people when he doesn't get his way.

Also, he leaves the seat up and doesn't aim.

The later, absolutely.

Somehow, allowing "those gays" to marry *endangers* mariage for straight Christians.

And no, I don't know how it does that either.

Our legal tradition and Constitution protects everyone, and provides for equal access to government services for everyone, regardless of gender or sexual identity.

EXCEPT for the marriage contract. Because the idjits in office believe that it is the government's duty to protect the "sanctity" of -

Wait, back right the hell up.

Government. Sanctity.

Our government, which is secular and has a construct of separation of church and state.

Sanctity.The etymology: From Middle English /saunctite/, from Anglic-French /sainteté/, from the Latin /sanctitat-/, /sanctitas/, from /sanctus/ meaning "sacred" -
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred :

Sacred. Holy. Godly.

Jefferson is spinning in his grave, screaming ITMF'sA.

And it's our governments' supposed duty to "protect the sanctity of the life of the unborn" and "lead Western nations in a Crusade" too.

ITMF'sA. At least Canada has a working legal system that's not been hijacked by religious fanatics.

I'm gay, I'm British. Gay marriage is legal here as it is in much of Europe. Next question.

coffee on the screen, thanks!

I live in Canada. Gay marriage is legal here ... for the time being, at least (the current Conservative government is endeavouring to repeal that right).

So, how do I feel about gay marriage?

I pretty much don't care either way. Since it's been instituted it hasn't changed my life one bit (selfish little me). And from my perspective (married) gay couples have been no more apparent than they were before.

Life is complicated, people. There are no definite answers.

Relationships are relationships. We can see within our own families that heterosexual couples don't have all the answers. We're all flawed. We're all f***ed up.

People find love where they find love where they find it. And as long as its not with a child or a goat, go on with your life.

I *love* my goat! He's my bestest fweind! *snif*


Okay, here's where I get into trouble...

I beleive that love between people is a Good Thing, regardless of gender. I also believe amourous relationships are great, as long as they remain consensual and moderately private.

My mother is very against homosexuality...I know why this is. She has had a *lot* of experiences with gay and lesbian couples who have pretty much forced their orientation onto her. Tongue kissing while she's talking with them in the living room; fondling each other's butts while walking down the street with her; paying to fly her halfway across the country to visit, then shouting "how dare she come here" when she doesn't immediately agree with a pro-homosexual comment.

I myself have had a person of the same gender try to force a mouth to mouth kiss on me at a party...and let's not get into the angsty drama I've seen with SL same gender relationships.

I know, this stuff isn't limited to just Gay/Lesbian couples; so this sounds biased and prejudiced. But, that's kind of my point: People form their opinions from thier experiences; you really have no other way to do so. This means that otherwise rational people can become very biased sounding if they are exposed to enough bad behaviour from a certain group of people.

You can only change yourself, and I believe people have a right to express love, regardless of gender. But I would point out that same sex couples are doing the 'gay marriage' issue no favors by tongue kissing each other in a public setting.

Remember, even a straight couple frenching in front of people would be told to "Get a room!" This isn't about gays shouldn't kiss. It's about social etiquette. And, frankly, a lot of the gay/lesbian folk I've met in my life could use some training in what is proper public behaviour.

Let the flaming commence!

Hey, it helps some people win elections!

I know exactly what you mean. This happened to me with Christians.

The legal and financial rights of partnership bestowed by government should be seperate from the religious bonding of two people.

If one wants both... they should apply for both. Let religion keep the term 'marriage' and let them enforce their gender rules within their parishes.

Let govt be blind to gender and let any two (or more?) people enter into lifetime legal/financial entanglement, and call it partnership or something else.

--
If marriage was really sacred then divorces wouldn't happen. Right?

We aim to please.

Actually its not - and the link you cited would only make it so if its passed.

A propossed ammendment is not the constitution until passed.

If the way youve worded it is a clever way to saying when it passes it will be , hence the "when Bush has its way" - your sentence structure is deliberately patronizing.

I think not allowing gay marriage while allowing straight marrige violates both the 1st and 14th ammendments.

You 'n me both, dear. I consider myself a Christian...but as Inigo Montoya would say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

"Anybody wanna peanut?"

*breathes in*

Dominionist Christians. "Dominionist"? Dominionist.

Dominionist: "Proselytising socially conservative theocratic evangelical biblical literalist Protestant Christian."

OR

Conservative Dominionist Muslims.

OR

Conservative Hindus*.

OR

Conservative Eastern Orthodox Christians.

OR

Conservative Sikhs.

OR

...

Christianity is one of the /very/ /few/ "ancient" Western religious traditions where people can be deeply affected and observant but still be tolerant of the views of others. Christianity is one of the very few "ancient" Western religious traditions where the group that wants control of the government of the country that a majority of them live in (america) is /such/ an actual minority that no /one/ word that describes them has come about until recently and formerly required /eight/ modifiers to separate them from the Christians who /don't/ want to have the state force their views on us at any and all costs.

*"Hindu" is a group of tribal deity and animist beliefs from the Indian subcontinent and is generally characterised as "all religious traditions from there that aren't Abrahamic, Buddhist, or Sikh."

I think that government has no buisness legislating any questions of morality or personal choice as long as there is no harm done to anyone.


How two people choose to make a commitment to each other should not matter to anyone else. Unfortunately, in America, there is still a very Puritanical mindset among lots of people.

Live and let live is the motto I try to live by.

Sam

I feel that putting the word marriage in quotations is going to make me really dislike this thread. What do you think of "tolerance"?

I think if you make it too tight you'll never meet spec and stay in budget.

what does lewis think?

This post is the biggest piece of bullshit I have ever read and I am reporting it as intolerant and homphobic. I suggest other's do as well.

Actually, I agree with Lio.

I mean a nice kiss in public is always welcome for either gender. The kind you can say "awwww" about.

She's referring to eating each other's face on a park bench with children playing nearby. She DID slant it slightly toward homosexuals but that's becuase it's the context of the post. EVERYONE needs to practice certain etiquette: just because you're fine swapping fluids with someone else doesn't mean we want to see you do it (unless it's a free download). Unfortunately, she's right...many homosexuals flaunt their homosexuality via their behavior in public because people just love flaunting social taboos. I don't think homosexuality SHOULD be taboo, but sadly, for now it is still a little. It's a bit hard to get people to stop being uncomfortable with homosexuality when they see homosexuals doing something that makes them uncomfortable when straight people do it.