[Sonador101]

hi I was wondering what you guys think about same sex marriages. I think that it is wrong beause of my religious values, because marriage was meant for men and women, also a million diseases can be transmitted through same sex marriages. Its also weird, I know some people are gay, but it shouldn't be legal, like I say its wrong!
though I want to know what you guys say, if you are gay/lesbian I would love to hear what you think, also I would like to hear what people who are straight think, acually I want to hear everyone's opinion.
remember this is only my opinion, but I want to here youirs:)
thanks

[Sam DePecan]

What do you think about the Ford Motor Company manufacturing Chevrolets and calling them Dodges?

[Emland]

also a million diseases can be transmitted through same sex marriages.

Same goes for hetero marriages, so that is not a good argument.

I have been in a traditional man + woman marriage for almost 22 years. I have no problem with gay/lesbian marriages at all. It is a contract after all and that should not be restricted. Many couples can't transfer property or have loved ones making critical decisions at a hospital and such because of the ways our laws are written concerning marriage. If your religion forbids it, then that is a different situation - that gets into the philosophical realm of if it is moral or not. I think people should be able to share their life with any consenting adult they choose.

[Sonador101]

yeah you have a pint, and yeas diseases can be transmitted through man+women marriages. Though we got to think this through, this country (america) has moral values, now I can't say "america says you guys can't marry" but I still feel the way I do.
now I don't have a promblem with people who are gay living together and having sex together, but once we make it legal there is no going back.

[Sam DePecan]

I was married to my wife for 31-Glorious Years. I found her laying face down on the floor in my bathroom; dead from a massive heart attack. If ONLY we would have been homosexuals then I would not have to be living every, every, everyday in hell here in this God-forsaking hell-hole called the United States of America!!! Because I am normal; I do NOT belong to any of those “special groups” and right now I wish that I could blow up the Federal Government. I wish that I could wipe Sacramento off the map, along with Sears, Wells Fargo, City Hall in San Francisco (BTW, where is Dan White when we really need him the most?) . . . And even Circuit City!!! You see, there is no one in Washington who finds it very rewarding to protect me from a Society and Government that sucks! I have no “special dictionary” of political words to grant me special privileges, like gay, closet, and hate. Am I phobic? . . . I am Federal-phobic! I am DEFINITELY afraid of your government. What will their dictionary say of the word, “Marriage” when their just-like-them-attorneys (free of charge) get through with it? Your guess is as good as mine. But for sure, “Marriage’ is about to become “ill-defined”. Now, do I hate anyone? Well, I told you the people who I can’t stand, because of what they did to me, due to the loss of my spouse. Are you telling me that ALL OF THEM are homosexualistic? I know what you are going to say . . . “Well, it’s you own fault! You shouldn’t have married someone who was going to someday die!” Do you know what? You are right.

[progunr]

That my friend was a serious vent, I hope you felt better after you posted it.

I'm afraid however, there is no room in that post for an answer.

Sorry about your loss.

[Fr_Chuck]

Well first I will most likely offend everyone on both sides, I care less about the marriage, marriage in the US is a legal system to control what is or was a social or religious teaching. So for gay, straight or men with sheep, the state could issue a civil contract for them if they want to make that legal, that is the states rights. The Federal government does not even have a right to rule on it, since it was and has always been a states right.

From the religious side, I don't care what you call it, it is not the paper I object to, it is the actual relationship, their living together in the first place that is offensive to me. So guess what the religious already lost this battle in the US, they are allowed to live together now in every state and there is nothing done about that.

So what they are looking for now is the legal status to protect the rights within that relationship. So let them have their civil union or "marriage" since it is still not a union that God is blessing, no matter what words some pastor says over them.

But with that, since society has allowed them to be together, those in those relationships need some legal protections and some of the pain of the legal system. For example when the gay couple breaks up I welcome them the hassle of divorce court and having to give each other 1/2 of their property. I also know some of the pain, for those couples that have children, often only one has legal custody, so both should have the same rights to their children. And at their death, while we may not like their relationships, they do desserve the right to inherit it property.

[Sonador101]

Sam depecan,
If you loved her it is good you married, her even though she died. It is not your fault whatsoever.
About you obviouly hating the government, I can't speak to that its your choice. I for one have a lot of respect for this country.
Are you saying that you wish you were gay so this would'nt of happened, well guys have heart attacks you know. You sound like your hurting but I must say I didn't understand most of your post, I betthers something in there, hidden in all the g man and basic g hatred.

[Synnen]

One of the few reasons my husband and I got married is because he was admitted to the emergency room, and they would NOT give me any information on him. We had been together 4 years at that point, and had every intention of spending the rest of our lives together--there was just no real hurry to marry. I mean, things were FINE the way they were--why mess with a good thing?

So.. I completely and totally understand the need that homosexuals feel to marry those they love. Without the power of marriage behind them, they can not inherit from each other, they have no rights on medical decisions for their "spouse" if somehow the spouse becomes incapacitated. They have no legal say for ANYTHING a normal married person could expect to have with their spouse. Can you BLAME them for fighting for it?

There's far too much hate in this world as it is. When love is found--should we REALLY punish it because it's not between a man and a woman?

Honestly, what it comes down to is this for me: If those religious conservatives out there are not willing to legalize marriage between homosexuals (and this has NOTHING to do with whether it is in a church--the different religions and churches out there should make their OWN choices as to whether they accept it--this has solely to do with the LEGAL aspect of it), then all rights that belong to a marriage should disappear. If a homosexual couple in the same thing as a marriage can not have those rights, then to keep this country equal, a heterosexual couple should not have them either. No legal rights to property, no tax breaks for each other, no rights for medical decisions--nothing. No legal rights to ANYTHING involving your spouse.

I don't give a rat's nostril about whether it's MORAL. I find some things that religions do highly offensive, bordering on "immoral". Your morals aren't mine. What I care about are the LEGAL aspects of it. If you are willing to devote yourself to another person for LIFE, then you should have LEGAL rights to aid your partner after an accident in making medical decisions, or rights to property after a death, or rights to health care benefits just like any other spouse would get.

[Sonador101]

Fr-chuck
If they want there (spouse) to inherit proberty they could write it up in a will,or somerting.

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes, but with the laws in the US, others can object and contest the will, if they do not include other specific people also. If it was a spouse those rules don't apply. You also have the issues in the hospital and also for things like child custody.

[Allheart]

I see nothing wrong with two people who fall in love and want to devote their lives to each other.

We will never know what makes someone gay. People can voice their opinion, subject, intergect, judge, but truth is... no one truly knows... except God.

Some people are sadly ( and it breaks my heart) so busy, looking out their window of their sinful house at others and judging, which by the way, is wrong in God's eyes.

Two people who fall in love and want to commit to each other... God bless them... and I bet he will.

The gay community gets slammed for being promiscious... and then when they want to devote their love and lives to one partner... they are not permitted to.

They have a right, to be there when their partner is sick. To have access to the doctors, nurses and be fully involved in their care. Why? Because they love them with all their heart and they have chosen each other to be life partners.

The shoes of a gay person, must be one painfully tight fit, with some in society so willing to throw rocks and stones and trying to prevent them from loving and caring about another individual.

I think we have far more problems then two people truly falling in love and caring about each other.

I have two friends who are partners and I could only wish, that everyone, could have the same, loving, devoted, loyal and caring relationship that these two wonderful people share.

[templelane]

The gay community gets slammed for being promiscious.....and then when they want to devote their love and lives to one partner....they are not permitted to.

Amen to that allheart!

I don't understand the moral objection to gay people living together- they are not hurting you! They are not forcing their lifestyle upon you - why should you do the same to them? I don't think I could ever be capable of understanding this objection.

Although here is the twist- I don't agree with gay 'marriage' as such as it is a religious idea. It's a bit like having a atheist Christmas or a Hindu Hanukah- logically it doesn't work.

Civil partnerships with all the rights of marriage should be allowed however. I know in the UK (don't know about the US) that there is a legal side of marriage where you sign papers and such and the religious churchy/synagoguey/templey bit which is completely unrelated and actually doesn't stand legally without the other bit. Homosexual relationships should be allowed the legal side- the religious side depend on the religion- it is their prerogative to decide. Religion and the state should not mix.

I believe (but I could be wrong) that this is the situation that is currently allowed in many states of the US and the UK.

[Synnen]

So here are my questions then:

If you are leaving it up to a particular religion as to whether gays can be "married" in the religious sense, and that a civil union is what a partnership conceived ONLY on the legal side is:

1. Are you going to call all current marriages that happened only in a courthouse "civil unions"? Unless a couple is married in a church, are they then only part of a civil union, and unable to say that they are "married" but just "partners" or "civil unionized"? I mean, that's only fair. You don't get to say you are "married" unless it happens within a religion, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

2. What if there are religions that have NO problem with marrying homosexuals. As long as they convert, can't they say they are married--I mean, if ONE religion counts as okay for approving marriage, can't ANY religion do so? Could homosexuals then say that they are "married"? I mean, it happened in a church!

[NeedKarma]

I have no problem with gay marriage at all. But you can't force upon the church or synagogue to perform the ceremony, they are too set in their ways to change. A civil ceremony should suffice to allow both partners the same benefits as hetero couples.

[templelane]

1. Are you going to call all current marriages that happened only in a courthouse "civil unions"? Unless a couple is married in a church, are they then only part of a civil union, and unable to say that they are "married" but just "partners" or "civil unionized"? I mean, that's only fair. You don't get to say you are "married" unless it happens within a religion, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

2. What if there are religions that have NO problem with marrying homosexuals. As long as they convert, can't they say they are married--I mean, if ONE religion counts as okay for approving marriage, can't ANY religion do so? Could homosexuals then say that they are "married"? I mean, it happened in a church!

1. Yep! Although I really doubt it'll catch on the same way vacuum cleaners are still called hoovers even though that is the brand name.

2. Yes again if the religion says they are married in that religions definition then they are. Of course some religions will say they can't marry in that religion but that is for the said religion to decide.

On a slight tangent I don't think atheist should be 'married' in the religious sense either, just in the legal civil partnership way. Maybe we need a larger vocabulary, civil unionised doesn't sound very romantic, but then again would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

I guess my reasoning derives from the religious communities should be able to live by their own laws. For example Sharia law in britian- I don't have to live by it as I am not a Muslim but Muslims can choose to live and be judged by it in their own courts.

Therefore civil partnerships and who can have them should not be influenced by religious sensibilities as technically it has nothing to do with them.

I'm not 100% sure I am explaining this correctly!

[bEaUtIfUlbRuNeTtE]

Come to Massachusetts!

A gay couple can get married here :)

[Emland]

I know in the UK (don't know about the US) that there is a legal side of marriage where you sign papers and such and the religious churchy/synagoguey/templey bit which is completely unrelated and actually doesn't stand legally without the other bit.

It's the same in the US. It isn't even necessary to have a ceremony - just get the correct legal official to sign a document and you are married. Many people get married at the courthouse with no religious ties and they are considered married, so why can't gays/lesbians?

If I understand it correctly a Catholic cannot marry outside their religion. If they do, the church does not recognize it. However, the state does and that is who controls property, child custody and next of kin rights. If straight couples can get married without the blessing of the church and have the state support it then there is no logical reason that gay couples shouldn't be awarded the same courtesy.

[Allheart]

Personally, I would not want to be the one who chooses whether a union can be blessed in the eyes of God. I think that choice should lay right in God's loving hands.
What if we down here are wrong, and God would want the couple to site their vows in His presence instead of outside His presence?

Perhaps God would want the couple to be with Him, like all of us sinners, who stand before a religious person to be united, and prefer the couple join together and live together with His love and guidance. Perhaps that would be in His plan. I would not want to be the one
To take away God, when two loving people want to be in His presence.

[NeedKarma]

I would not want to be the one
to take away God, when two loving people want to be in His presence.

I think that's the crux of the problem - the two people may very well want a church wedding but they run into problems finding an accommodating priest/parish.