Gay marriage

[deutschgarten]

Jesus; The Bible's only Leftest.

[owtopia]

You guys are getting the Bible mixed up. Those passages from the bible are in the old testament, which is Jewish stuff. The new testament has Christianity's law's, which are different.

[Kardas]

Judaism and Christianity (and Islam, really) have the same base, so they still have a lot of common ground....

[spartacus]

owtopia said:

You guys are getting the Bible mixed up. Those passages from the bible are in the old testament, which is Jewish stuff. The new testament has Christianity's law's, which are different.

So you're saying Christians don't believe in the Old Testament? What are Creationists talking about then? Why is it even in the Christian Bible if you don't believe any of it anyway?

Even the New Testament can be interpreted for evil, however. Slavery was justified in this country and was kept alive in part because Jesus did not oppose it in the Bible.

[chalcidice]

I think there is some confusion around the state's institution of marriage here. No one can "force" a religion or church to marry anyone even if gay marriage is legal. For example, many Catholic churches will not marry a couple unless both members of the couple convert to Catholicism.

However, the state has a legal concept called "marriage" which is essentially a contract between two people. People in a marriage are accorded certain rights by the state (for example, inheritance, child custody, tax breaks, etc.). Also, when a couple is "married" as opposed to a civil union, that marriage may be recognized by other states or nations. Civil unions generally are not recognized across boundaries.

In my experience, civil unions are generally not accorded equal status as marriage. There are many, many changes in law required to create an entirely new institution called "civil union" which is just redundant. The state already has an institution that it calls "marriage". Why create an entirely new legal construct called "civil union" if the state treats it exactly the same as a "marriage"?

On top of that, there are civil rights implications. The gay/lesbian/transgender community would like to be treated equally under the law. Civil unions attempt to create "a separate but equal" system that, in my opinion, is almost always second-class to all-out marriage wherever civil unions have been instituted. I hail from California where, until recently, civil unions were the rule, and despite the state's attempts to accord civil unions all the rights of marriage, the state could only go so far due to federal and international law. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry accords them the same rights as straight people since "marriage" in the eyes of the state would see no difference between a straight or gay marriage. Why should the state continue to discriminate between straights and gays when it comes to the concept of marriage? I don't see any reason why it should. I think civil unions are a clever compromise, but they do not go far enough and still allow the state to continue to discriminate.

Those are my thoughts - for what it's worth....

[Neo Nibu]

I agree totally with what your saying, at first my position was for civil unions, however for same basic reasons you've stated I changed my mind a while back...

[Natalie]

Gay marriage should most deffinately be legal. If you think differently, why shouldn't it be?

[White mc hetero male]

I believe that anyone who isn't exactly like me should be removed from society.