Gay Marriage

I couldn't agree with you more...love and commitment is between 2 PEOPLE...not 2 people and the government.

This ties in with my agreement with excon as well....marriage is about love and commitment between 2 people...not 2 people and religion.
I am not religious, nor do I believe in god (and I'm hoping this statement doesn't spin off to another religious debate)...I am just stating, that I am married and its not a religious union...should should I have not been allowed to marry my husband?

Love shouldn't have laws or limitations.

I am against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
I have no problem with gay couples. If they want a civil union, great. Things are starting to change - you can have your partner listed on your health insurance, etc. I just don't think a union with 2 ssame sex people should be called "marriage".

The government provides a contract for two people, ( normally man and women currently) to join into a civil contract in which each takes on specific liabilitys and duties toward the other. The actual terms of this contract is not national in the US, but by state, I believe even in canada the terms of the contract are by provinence and vary some.

The fallicy that this is called marriage has come from over time, the state taking over the place of the church, in early times there were no civil contracts but all marriages were arranged and tracked by the church, and in other times and cultures there were no actual legal contracts merely a custom or tradition that joined the couple with no written legal contract.

So as customs moved, and governments make laws, marriage was controled by the state , which is not the right of the governmetn to do so. So a couple can marry without a license from the state, but they do not get reconised for legal rights, this is where the state is interfering with religious culture and rights.

So does a gay couple have the right to marry, by whose standards, if they belong to a religious group that allows it, of course they can but that does not mean a governemnt has to reconinse it. That is a different standard.

The laws of a government is set by the culture and moral fiber of its citizens, in such the nature in the US today is that such marriages are not to be allowed, and as such the laws of the nation should reflect that if the government is going to control it. ( which it should not)

Should a religious body be free to refuse to perform a gay marriage of course, and in some areas where religous groups are being forced to have to reconise these, that is another abuse of state power.

So the nation as a law should not even be issuing marriage.

As for me personally, no gay marriage is against the moral laws of God, against nature and is disgrace of how low man can move down the ladder of evolution.

You all bring up very good points.

I have no problem with gay couples being married, but the question comes into what are you going to call it? For the record, I don't care what you call it, but maybe there's a way to appease others who DO care.

Perhaps the government should get out of "marriage" and only recognize "civil unions". You are only "married" in a church ceremony, and the government couldn't give a hoot.

Not religious? Gay? Don't have a church you belong to? That's a civil union, recognized by the state and the federal government.

Religious? Belong to a church? Found a church who will marry you? Then you have a ceremony and you are "married" in the eyes of the church. Again, it means squat to the government; sort of like if you get baptized. The state doesn't care, only you, your church and your family care.

It's all semantics. It's all coming up with a word that gives the same rights and equal treatment to everyone, but just making sure that word isn't "marriage". Because really, if the government allowed everyone to get married, and then the churches developed a new thing; "marriage in the eyes of god" or something, what's the difference? What it comes down to is you either think gays should have the same rights as others or you don't. Take the language out of it - it's rights versus no rights.

I don't care who gets married, since half of them don't work out anyway.

Marriage today, to me, is nothing more than an economic union. Anyone should be able to marry anyone they wanted. We have a separation of church and state, and the only logical reason we have to ban same sex marriages is because of religious reasons.

I'm against it. I used to try hard to not get red dots, and just wouldn't answer on these types of questions... But I've come to realize that in modern society, true Christianity is just one big red dot. Don't think that I'm a homophobe by any means... I'm also against pre marital sex, and smoking, drinking, cursing, and anything else that God has said isn't right.
Homosexuals say they are born that way... That's fine, everyone needs to be born again anyways... I promise you'll come out straight at that point.
Just a side note, any person that skips over anything in the Bible, saying its less important, or trying to rationalize, they're making up their own god, and belief system. If you're a Christian you are of the Bible, straight up.
~Ash

No one is the bible "Straight up"

This one is surprisingly simple for me:

I don't care what anyone else does. Its not for me to judge or decide what's right for someone else.