so can a plethora of other completely legal things I'm not saying it's ideal, but if the grown child of the parent is competent, why should I care what they do?
If you believe that, I can understand why you would have absolutely no understanding of why people are against gay marriage or any other act that people find as immoral acts.
There are 2 different facets interested in the definition of marriage - religious and government. Both seem to care what the definition is and why it should or should not be between one man and one woman. I can understand the religious side of the one man one woman argument, but I cannot understand why the government should care one way or another. Maybe someone can help me understand this? As mentioned by others, each religion would choose whether to recognize (and perform) gay marriages. It is already being done with other legal aspects of our society. For instance, the hospital here is Catholic, therefore a woman cannot get her tubes tied here, she has to go to a neighboring facility. Gay marriage would be the same, they would simply choose not to do them or even recognize them. But there are other religions that would perform and recognize them, and that is their right. For the people who choose to go to the courthouse and do it without a religious blessing, I fail to see why the government would care if it is called a civil union or marriage. Not only do they care, it seems to be front and center on some political figures agenda. I again fail to see why this is more important than the many other important issues facing the government today. Baffling to say the least.
Would you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be immoral, or just act of two people of the same sex getting married? I agree. I wish I could answer the last part. Because church and state isn't really separate?
Church and state have always been "separate" but lets not kid ourselves and act like this country wasn't founded on Christian beliefs. Our money says In God We Trust for crying out loud. I agree that legally, gay people should be able to get hitched. Not that I deem it a pressing issue, selfishly I'm just sick and tired of hearing about it incessantly.
I doesn't really matter what I feel is immoral. I've already said I have no real issues if the government were to allow civil unions between homosexuals and give them the same treatment that married hetero couples get. Maybe is semantics, but I feel that marriage is a religious union and should not be altered. Most religions do not approve of gay marriage because it goes against their teachings and faith. I'm not even religious but I stand up for their rights to protect their beliefs because they do so because they feel it it the right and moral position to take. I know several gay people, have some in my family. I respect them and do not treat them any differently than anyone else. That doesn't mean that I support everything that they do. That's my right, just as much as it is their right to choose to be gay.
I don't see anyone claiming it wasn't, but last time I looked, it wasn't 1776. Look around. Things are a little different now. Just a little.
When the courthouse guy conducts a wedding... the government just crossed the line of separation. From the churches' perspectives... (most not all) marriage is a Holy Union... it's that important... that's the point. I don't think anyone here is devaluing gay people... I at least hope not. The conflict is the view that Christians hold marriage as the most Holy institution given to man... and when groups are allowed to violate the sanctity of that institution... it is offensive to Christians because there is a sense that the governement is saying there is no difference between what is Holy and what is secular. If a pastor were to go into a government courthose, use the Bible in a wedding ceremony, pray through Jesus name to God... depending on the community in which it were done... there'd be some nut suing the city for violating the fictional "Separation of Church and State" clause of the constitution.
I wish they would allow it but not call it marriage to give them what they want but still appease Christians. That however, wouldn't be good enough.
Is it worse to have two atheists of opposite sex be legally married, or allow two christian of the same sex to be legally married?
To do so goes against the teachings that they follow, so I guess I would think less of that church for not following what they have been taught. Not that it surprises me, churches are full of hypocrites anyway.
Exactly the reason I think it should be legal, just remove the marriage term from those unions that aren't Christian. We are all about not offending every group known to man these days, except Christians.
See, there's the rub. Atheists would have no reason to be married, for any other reason that the benefits the government gives to married couples. Marriage shouldn't be a term used by atheists because marriage is an ideal brought about by religion, and since atheists are void of religion, there's no reason to consider marriage. Right? Christians shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible they choose to follow, so a true christian, and follower of the teachings of the bible wouldn't consider attempting to marry a member of the same sex, at least in my opinion.
Like I said before, believe it or not, there are gays that consider themselves Christians that would like to be able to have a religious, ceremonial marriage. And there are churches out there that are willing to do this. How is this hard to understand?
Because our country was founded on religious beliefs, marriage has become part of our society in more than a just a religious way. You can blame the lack of separation of church and state from the beginning. It was the only legal junction between a man and a woman that the government would recognize. When that happened, any couple that wanted to join as one by law, was required to be married. So our options are as follows: 1. The government will not allow same sex marriages. 2. The government will recognize same sex marriages as legal. 3. Change the name of the legal union from "marriage" to something else. (Christians will complain about his as well even though it would probably fix this issue.)
Could you please point out where in the bible that is says Christians can pick and choose which rules to follow? It say you must repent from your sins, and per the bible homosexuality is a sin. So unless a person were to repent from being gay, then they would have no path to heaven, so what would be the point of being a Christian if there was no eternal life at the end of the tunnel? Seems kinda silly to me.
Are you going to deny that people have their own interpretations of the Bible and it's rules? Hell, just look at all the denominations of Christianity. Don't act like all Christians believe the same thing.
