Experts and users discuss same sex marriage, gay rights: Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Real Goal of the Gay Lobbies
As the push for same-sex marriage continues, I believe that homosexual people will find that they are the recipients of a great deal of enmity and hostility from other people, all brought on by their political lobbies – the gay activist organizations.
But same sex marriage is not the goal of the gay lobbies. Their target is nothing less than a program to indoctrinate the public to accept the idea that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal, acceptable and desirable alternative to heterosexuality.
They’ve already begun. In April 2006, in Lexington, Mass. a second-grade teacher read a story book to her class about a prince who marries another prince...they even share a kiss. The irate parents in Lexington tried to get some assistance from the court in their efforts to reject books of this kind from the classroom, but the court turned them down since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts.
We’ll be seeing more of this kind of indoctrination from the gay lobbies.
- Sivan
July 11, 2008 1:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A challenge to the rhetoric of "victimized" conservatives
What is perhaps just as logically flawed claims of "unnatural" homosexuality is the rhetoric of victimization that this organization claims for the conservative agenda. By twisting the truth into a depiction of the "seemingly invincible juggernaut of the gay agenda," this conservative group attempts to appear as a political underdog-- trying to evoke pity as a proxy for support.
I wish that the gay agenda had the type of corporate dollars, supporters in the White House and other forms of financial and personal resource the conservative Christian agenda funnels to our nation's political system-- as this expert seems to claim. Then we would have an equal footing for debate.
Until then, do not mistake the persistent inequality of political power based on this organization's skewed vision.
Let's continue fighting for the true equality of all families!
- JMT July 13, 2008 7:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hate is Hate
Whether it be for the color of someones skin, or their choose of whom to love, hate is hate. People hate what they do not understand, or what they see in themselves. That being said, discriminating against the life choices of someone else is just wrong.
- Ralph July 16, 2008 12:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who seeks to exclude from others the rights they themselves enjoy
If marriage between a man and a woman were declared illegal tomorrow. My wife and I would still be together. We would know who we are to each other. We would raise our child together.
How then is our union threatened by others also joining into marriage. Choosing, not because of tradition or expectation or law, but because of the purest purpose and reward of marriage, loving union with your partner.
The threat to marriage comes from those wanting to join into its covenant, but rather those ready to declare individuals unfit because of color or faith, station in life or their sexual orientation.
- Tony Hudgins
July 17, 2008 1:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?
I'm all for same sex couples getting married. But it's the legal part that I disagree with. IMHO, the legality of marriage should have nothing to do with government recognition or benefits.
Governments should have a concept for Civil Unions for any two people to enter into. A contract between the couple and the State in essence. If the government wants to provide benefits, i.e. tax deductions, to people in a union as a result of them having kids, owning property, etc, then do so as encouragement and recognition that stable relationships can benefit the greater good of society (not that single people don't as well.)
Marriage then should be, as it has become, a religious institution. Let each faith in the world decide if they will allow their religious leaders and followers to participate in same sex marriages or not.
- BrianJ July 24, 2008 6:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eliminate marriage as a legal concept
Marriage is, at its heart, a religious concept. Many valid social goals are accomplished by giving it legal weight, and it's time we explicitly enumerate those goals, and how those goals can be accomplished. A contemporary American nuclear family could easily do just as well raising a child as an extended family (with a single parent). Adults living together in one household enjoy pooling assets and resources. Why limit that to a man and a woman? Why not homosexual couples? Why not extended families? Why not polygamous unions? Public policy should explicitly exclude religious tenets. Religious are free to forbid same-sex marriages, but the scope of that limitation should not exceed the boundaries of the church.
- Fastolfe July 24, 2008 12:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, not really
"Marriage is, at its heart, a religious concept."
This is factually inaccurate. Marriage is a cultural construct that transcends religions, whose requirements and structure vary from religion to religion, culture to culture, period to period.
Marriage as understood in western society arose from property issues, particularly inheritance for legitimate male offspring. For a signficant part of Christian history, the Christian church did not participate in marriages. Marriage in the U.S. is not contingent on having any religious allegiance, nor does it require adherence to the rules and beliefs of one's chosen religion. The marriage contract in the U.S. is a civil contract, and the clergy's religious role in weddings is ancillary to the civil authority they are granted by the state to recognize the civil contract of marriage.
- WRoget August 20, 2008 7:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What is "marriage"?
That two or more people can marry one another emotionally is both unquestionable and unpreventable by others. Those in "same-sex" relationships have emotionally married one another likely since our species was identifiable as a distinct species and will likely continue to do so until the species is no more. Those who wish to keep the administrative marriage of same-sex individuals illegal cannot prevent the emotional marriage, nor can they prevent same-sex relationships from both inventively creating offspring and raising them to maturity. One wonders what is actually being accomplished except the irrational and prejudicial exclusion of some individuals from the benefits of administrative recognition of what already exists. What is likely to happen in the continued illegality of same-sex administrative marriage is that these individuals will acquire the same benefits of heterosexual marriages by other means. Life adapts and improvises - or it perishes.
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 8:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Definition of marriage
The definition of marriage is a union and committment between a MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD. You don't change definitions because a small vocal minority wants it. I certainly understand same sex people being in love and wanting to spend their remaining days together. So for insurance and other reasons I would be inclined to agree with some type of civil unions. But marriage.....NO
- irishguy730 July 25, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply to irishguy730
The definition of the term "marriage" is such because we have arbitrarily defined it that way as an expression of views we have inherited. There doesn't seem to be a justification for this definition in your comment. On your line of reasoning, inter-racial marrying, which was of course legally barred for decades, would automatically be justified. We must challenge these assumptions to see if they hold water today.
Considered more systematically however, if you were to go to church and marry without seeking the approval and consent of the state, your marriage wouldn't be legally valid. The inverse, however, isn't true: If you are given a contract by the state to marry without seeking the consent of a religious affiliation your marriage is still valid. My point is that marriage, at its foundation, is granted importance by the state. Therefore, religion aside, why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to marry whom they choose?
- Alex M
August 26, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who cares!!!
ppl serisouly waste way too much time on issues like this when there are bigger things going on in the world. its so tireing listening to this argument. BOTTOM LINE....why does it matter?!?!? i am a straight female...i love my boyfriend...and i do not care if 2 women or 2 men are in love and want to be married. you cannot stop it...if they are in love and want to be together for the rest of their lives...they will!whats the big deal with making it official by allowing marrige??? who cares!!! i get that religious ppl go by what the bible says....but would you really care if you didnt have your religion to back it up??? its fine that ppl have their beliefs....i respect that. but this issue to me seems like it shouldne even be an issue. times have changed...and ppl continue to change as well.i have relatives along with friends who are gay. and guess what...their just as normal as everyone else i know. i dont see the big deal. ppl feel what they feel and they shouldnt be belittled bc of it
- lanidee02 July 26, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay-marriage opponents ignore fact.
Let me dissect a few points that opponents of gay marriage often bring up:
-Gay marriage will lead to more homosexuals by legitimizing the gay lifestyle.
A Swedish study published last month showed that gay men and women consistently displayed a brain structure that resembled that of the opposite sex. You see, one of the hemispheres of a woman's brain is slightly bigger than the other, while in men the hemispheres are the same size, which has long been known to be a reliable way to tell apart the sexes physically (besides the really obvious ways) Gay men had brains that resembled a woman's brain and vice versa for lesbian women. This basically proves irrefutably that homosexuality is not a so-called "lifestyle choice", but a born-in trait, determined in the womb.
-Gay parenting will create screwed up kids by denying them a father or mother figure.
Yes! This is why we, as a society, do not allow single mothers to raise kids. It's just not healthy.
I'd do more, but I'm out of room.
- DelBeano
August 1, 2008 9:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay Parenting
"This is why we, as a society, do not allow single mothers to raise kids. It's just not healthy" how can you say that society doesnt allow single mothers to parent so gays shouldnt either? around 50% of marriages dont last, gay or straight regardless creating single parents. single mothers and fathers raise children all the time with complete sucess and in that situation there is only 1 parent. in a gay marriage there are 2 parenting so it would only create more stability and a better concept of family. im sorry to say that most who are so insecure about any aspects of homosexuality are probably insecure with themselves.
- alesha September 15, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Re-read.
You're right, but I think you mischaracterize the statements above. If you re-read you'll find that DelBeano was surely being sarcastic, given that his or her statement was in support of gay marriage and is titled "gay marriage opponents ignore fact."
- nevermath
October 4, 2008 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"No" answer is merely religious
The only reason to not allow same-sex marriage is religious in nature...that is it is an abomination to God. As a Christian myself, I realize that not everyone is Christian and that I have no right to impose my faith on anyone else.
Do I agree with the lifestyle? Of course I don't. Religious institutions may refuse to participate or officiate in said ceremonies if they wish, but for goodness sake let people be happy.
- bagpiper2005
August 12, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is more than one religious perspective
The idea 'homosexuality is sin' is a religious belief, but it is not the only one. Many people of faith believe, based on the Bible, that homosexuality is not sin. Further, they believe that labeling the loving intimacy between two people of the same gender as 'an abomination' is not only a false translation of "toe'vah", but because it falls in a passage that requires the death penalty, the claim is a overt repudiation of Christ's teachings and a covert death threat.
In other words, to many progressive and liberal Christians, 'homosexuality is sin' is incompatible with Christian faith and life.
Since there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle, such claims are 'bearing false witness' which is repeatedly forbidden in the Bible.
Before posting one's religious views as fact, one should consider that they are, at best, speculation, and often lead one into sin, such as bearing false witness.
- WRoget August 20, 2008 6:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do you care only for children?
The "parents" need their freedom too. We're all human beings, animals. We have feelings. It's just a minority of us have feelings for the same sex, but those people should not be deprived of their place in the society. It is not weird for a child to have two parents of the same sex. The parents need to be accepted in this society too.
As for the children, if they really do get out of hand with a single parent, we should help them more, shouldn't we? We should teach them if their parents don't.
The children feel left out because the society looks at same sex parents as unacceptable people. Just like the parents feel the pain.
The best solution to this is to accept same sex lovers as part of our society, not looking down on them or anything, letting them feel accepted, so the children will not have any problems at all.
- Rainie August 13, 2008 2:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Proof please
Sivan claimed "But same sex marriage is not the goal of the gay lobbies."
So it should be easy for Sivan to provide 25 statements from 'gay lobbies' with external links of course, explicitly stating that same-sex marriage is not the goal'.
If Sivan does not or cannot, then Sivan is posting false information, and every claim by Sivan must be interpretted in light of that.
- WRoget August 20, 2008 6:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is it about rights?
Where I seem to run into a a problem is the claim that what is wanted most is rights. I have seen the idea of a union of two people with all of the legal rights of a heterosexual community floated only to see it rebuffed because the term "Civil Union" was used instead "Marriage". Presumedly because it implies acceptance by the broader community. Like it or not you can't legislate acceptance by a community or a religion. Attempts to do so generally result in resentment by both parties.
- Aegiltheugly
September 3, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Separate but equal is not equal
Aegiltheugly,
I believe that all they want is equal rights under the law. We've seen how "separate but equal" worked in the segregated south. It didn't work. "Separate" can never be "equal".
I firmly believe that the word marriage can be replaced by union, civil union, or household in legal documents and law. In fact, that's what we should do. Then, if you are registered in that status, you have all the financial obligations and rights that only married couples can share in now. And that includes divorce.
Then we could let the churches marry people under their beliefs and procedures. That way, the sacred covenant of marriage would be protected in your church.
Would that not satisfy everyone?
Michelle
- litebkt October 11, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not even close to equal
I appreciate your points, Aegiltheugly, and I could accept the union, civil union, or household designation -- except for one thing. To yield the point would be to allow the religious right to claim a word out of the English language as belonging solely to them. According the Websters Dictionary, 1996, marriage is defined as the taking of another person as husband or wife. It says nothing about a husband taking a wife. Two women can just as easily take each other as wife, or two men take each other as husband. I feel it would be wrong to make that sort of concession to any group. Witness the foolishness of Spike Jones suing Spike TV because they were encroaching on his trademark of his name.
- OddGrouch
October 29, 2008 4:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You have made a great point and I've changed my opinion
OddGrouch,
You have an excellent point and I now agree with you without reservation. It must be up to the churches to make their own distinction within their own congregations and doctrine and practice that belief within the confines of their faith. Marriage under the law should be afforded to everyone. It is a right that we must all have.
Michelle
- litebkt October 29, 2008 12:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Marriage is only between a man & a woman
Two people of the same sex getting married is just two people playing house. It has nothing to do with hate or discrimination. It has to do with what is right or wrong. Allowing gay marriage is just showing that the society is going deeper into moral decay. God is the one that created marriage & it is between one man and one woman anything else apart from that is not of God therefore, cannot be called a marriage.
Some people might say God does not judge them well let's clarify that. While you are alive on this earth in your mortal body God has not yet pass judgment on anyone because he wants everyone to be saved and that means accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, because after death is the judgment. Everyone will give have to an account on the type of life they lived here on earth.
Does God allow each of us to make our own choices? Yes, but know this every decision you make has consequences. The Bible said in Revelation 2l verse 8, "But the cowardly, the unbelieving the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." I am not making this up it is already written.
- Tamara
September 4, 2008 8:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You May Be Christian...BUT...
You have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives. Not everyone believes the same way you do. What you are trying to do is impose your religion on everyone else, which is just as immoral as allowing corruption into your religion.
If your religion or any other religion does not want to ordain same-sex marriages, fine. But keep religion out of politics and let those who don't believe the same as you live their lives the way they see fit without you interfering with their right to do so. I don't see them interfering with your right to Bible-thump, so don't let them interfere with their right to unbelief if that's what they so desire.
- bagpiper2005
September 19, 2008 6:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for walking into the trap.
This comment is a perfect example of what a previous poster was talking about - opposition to this issue is based on religious dogmas. As long as you're proving them right at every turn, your side will never gain any ground with rationalists.
- DelBeano
September 23, 2008 7:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God and Marraige
God created marraige?
There are many people that do not believe in God but still get married. There are many others who believe in other gods that you do not believe in. Do they not have equal rights?
The bottom line for me is this: You have equal rights under the constitution or you don't.
Keep marriage sacred in your own church and let the government treat everyone equal. Won't that work?
Michelle
- litebkt October 11, 2008 9:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Civil Marriage vs. Sacramental Marriage
As long as marriage is used contractually by society as a means of determining who is or is not eligible to receive governmental benefits, rights or protections, there can be no legitimate reason to limit it to only heterosexual participants, based upon religious strictures and dictates.
Churches should have the absolute right to determine who is or is not eligible to receive any of their sacraments or blessings, and may discriminate at will based upon whatever criteria they set for themselves, but government has no such leeway. If heterosexuals continue to want their government to acknowledge their marriages and dispense rights and protections based upon those marriages, then such acknowledgement must be open and available to ALL citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.
The fact that we currently have a situation in which sacramental blessings of marriage and governmental verification of civil marriage are dispensed at the same moment by the same officiant, should in no way cause us to confuse the two separate and distinct institutions.
If we need to rename one of these institutions "civil unions" and provide such civil unions to all couples who seek governmental acknowledgment of their relationships, regardless of the gender of the participants, and leave the other term, "marriage" as a purely religious concept to be granted at will by various religious institutions, then so be it. It would probably be easier, on the whole, though, for us all to just grow up and realize that the two institutions exist side-by-side and, while we may be able to control the one (sacramental), there is no good reason to deny the other (civil) to any of our fellow citizens based upon our personal religious beliefs.
- Babaroni
September 10, 2008 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Same Sex Marriage
Same sex marriage is a perversion of the very meaning of the word 'marriage' - an institution established by God between one man and one woman for life. Homosexuality itself is a perversion and imagination of how we were created. Life is hard and there are hard questions asked in life, but this is not one of them. It is not hard to realize if we were created male or female, and one should bring their mind into harmony with the way their body was created / not bring their body into subjection to their mind. The reality is that we are either male or female - any other thoughts we may have about how we feel is not reality and nothing short of perversion and imagination of who we really are. To think of taking homosexuality to another level of 'marriage' is even more perversion and imagination.
- Canadian September 18, 2008 8:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Separation of Politics and Religion
To Bagpipe2005
It is impossible to separate religion from politics and this is why, whether you like it or not, or whether you are a Christian or not God is the one who created laws and how we as human beings should live in a society. The 10 commandments is the very basis of almost every county's law in the world today.
For example thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit fornication etc. And from these laws spring forth other laws.
So when people say separate religion from politics that is not a valid argument. God's standard will always be the best way, anything from that is lawless. So you not loving God or don't care anything about Him does not change anything. You have your opinion and I have my truth. Peace
- Tamara
September 20, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So are we going to teach...
...our kids that earth is 6,000 years old in school? Hey, you can't separate religion from politics, right?
Of course, I feel sorry for anyone who believes that nonsense.
By the way, I'm very deeply rooted in the Christian faith. I have a very strong faith in Christianity, but I do not force that faith on others and I let people live the way they see fit and love the people they want to love. Adultery is perfectly legal in this nation, as is lying, coveteousness, and not attending church, so your theory of the 10 Commandments being the basis for law is out the window.
A majority of the founding fathers of this nation were actually non-Christians anyway (most of them were Deists). "God's standard" might be the best way, but we can't hold everyone to that standard, as such we would be oppressing minorities. To make everyone commit to Christian values against their will is truly disgusting, people just want to be free to live their lives.
- bagpiper2005
September 22, 2008 1:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scientific Facts
Evolution theory makes it clear that homosexual activities are perversions of natural biological laws. The basis of evolution is the reproduction of beneficial genes and the elimination of detrimental ones in succeeding generations -- the "survival of the fittest." In our species that requires heterosexual intercourse. If accidental mutation had ever produced a "homosexual gene," lack of propagation would have quickly bred it out of Homo sapiens.
Thus, homosexuals do what they do because they want to, not because they have to. That they have a right to do it is no excuse for new laws to force others to approve of it.
Every known human community has had the sound scientific foundation of heterosexual marriage, which we are now urged to destroy for a minority's perverted pleasures.
- Allogic
September 29, 2008 7:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mischaracterization of Evolution
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Evolution has no moral import! It's also not a grounding for normative ethics. Even granted that homosexuals are 'unfit' for procreation biologically, this says nothing of moral implications.
Here's a thought experiment: let's say that a certain evolutionary trait develops which renders people sterile, should they not be allowed marriage?
Also, evolution isn't absolute, poor traits are not necessarily extinguished just because they aren't most fit.
Finally, how is allowing gay marriage "destroying" heterosexual marriage?
You should change the first letter of your screen-name to an 'i.'
- nevermath
October 4, 2008 1:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Marriage for the same sex is a contradiction
How can two gay individuals celebrate marriage? The purpose of entering into a marriage contract in the eyes of Christians is for a man and woman to give themselves to one another--freely, totally, faithfully and fruitfully (fruitful being that children may bare forth). God wanted to make this free, total, faithful and fruitful love so evident, so real to us, that he clearly stamped it into our bodies as male and female--when we come together in the sexual union (intercourse), it is a reminder that we are called to a total self-giving, nuptial love for one another. This is what marriage is. Lawyers will never redefine this in the eyes of the faithful (no matter what changes to civil law they might make). Next, marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament is defined by newadvent.org as "an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification." The substance of the "sacrament of marriage" or the "sanctity of marriage" i.e. the word "marriage" itself, occurs only in the religious context. Those "religions" out there who recognize homosexual unions and call it "marriage," are in the eyes of their Christian brothers and sisters, illegitimately and falsely interpreting the sacrament of marriage. And it is not me or other people out there who define what the sacrament of marriage is; man does not have this authority. It was Christ who defined marriage in holy scripture and it is from His authority that we draw our definition. There are several scripture passages to site. In Ephesians 5:22 for example: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the savior of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church..." This passage defines marriage as a call for men and women to come together in marriage, to serve Christ, to serve each other, their family, and the community.
What I am saying is that the union of same sexes cannot fulfill the sacramental definition of marriage, and hence the argument misses the mark. It is ultimately an improper understanding of sacramental marriage. The effort for "gay marriage" is really an effort to seek legitimacy. Any attempt to do so is invalid in the eyes of Christians (and I am sure other faiths...Islam, Judaism etc) who properly understand the sacrament of marriage. So it doesn't matter if the lawyer says it's legal. No matter how much homosexuals want their relationships recognized and validated through the sacrament of marriage, it will never happen. Yet despite this, we love our homosexual brothers and sisters very much, we simply do not condone their sexual relationships outside of marriage (the same goes for heterosexual sexual relationships outside of marriage). This is not a form of discrimination, it is a matter of affirming a decision to live the life we are ALL called to live by Christ--one of chastity (a virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence in the sexual appetite) and purity (not confusing lust for love). Only in this way will we find true fulfillment in life, as we discover the beauty and purpose of our human dignity--the call to live a life of free, total, faithful and fruitful love. This selfless love is pure and free of lust. We do not use an individual merely for our sexual gratification, we come to see a person for who they are! Marriage between a man and a woman is a reminder, an icon if you will, of this total self giving love. This is why we fight to keep people out there from deconstructing the definition of this sacred institution. If you are interested in finding out more about this "Theology of the Body" check out Pope John Paul's teachings on the theology of the body, explained by Christopher West ( http://www.tobinstitute.org /). It is the most profound, uplifting and eye opening material I have ever studied. It has changed my life and how I view others.
- wdpauli
October 12, 2008 10:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Great job of falling into the religious dogma trap!!!
We're talking about civil marriage here, not sacramental or religious marriage. If your religion doesn't want to honor a same-sex union, fine, but at the same time, whatever happened to separation of church and state?!?!?!?
- bagpiper2005
October 14, 2008 9:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Job
I like your explanation of marriage. I believe you are right. It is so sad that people exchange the truth for a lie. People who believe in gay marriage set a trap for themselves. All who believe in Christ have nothing to loose.
- Tamara
October 16, 2008 8:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is either right or wrong?
To Michelle:
God is the one that created people (whether they want to deny his existence or not) therefore everyone has some measure of good in them and also a conscience. So people who chose to practice homosexuality or follow other gods are only searing their conscience. Nature itself testifies that God exist, for instance observe the change in seasons no human being is smart enough to invent that. Not even animals practice such depravity as some humans. Remember sin came into the world because of Mankind.
I am a Christian and I refuse to agree with three quarters of the people saying it is right when God find that lifestyle detestable. Any Christian who tells you or anybody else that practicing homosexuality is O.K with God he/she in their own sweet way is telling you to go hell and the spirit of truth is not them. Don't be deceived the devil is a roaring lion seeking who he may devour. The Bible said I present before you life or death choose life. The life you live here on earth will determine where you spend eternity it is either heaven or hell. Jesus is your savior while you are on earth and he is your judge once your spirit leaves your body especially if you are not a Born again Believer filled with the Holy Spirit. A day will come when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. There is only one God.
You may not like what I have to say, that is O.K the truth alone is controversial.
- Tamara
October 12, 2008 10:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gods have nothing to do with same sex marriage
If you study history, it is crystal clear that people have universally labeled things they could not comprehend as god. Mankind has created thousands of gods in its image during the 100,000 years that humans have existed in our 4.7 billion year old earth and 13.7 billion year old universe.
As we learn more about all aspects of the universe and the evolution of biological life in it, the gods we created keep getting smaller and smaller. At this point, we can explain pretty much everything without invoking a sky daddy.
It is way more intellectual honest to say that "this is something we don't know yet but we are looking into it" than t