what is so wrong about gay marriage???

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Some, including myself, view it as a holy sacrament.

Something tells me, though, that the homosexuals bashing the Christian faith because of their beliefs about homosexuals would not view marriage as a Holy sacrament, seeing as they disagree with Christian beliefs on marriage, which is in fact a Christian sacrament to begin with, if I'm right.

"Christians typically regard marriage as instituted and ordained by God (Genesis 2 and 3) for the lifelong relationship between one man as husband and one woman as wife."

Therefore, if a homosexual wanted to participate in the sacrament of marriage, wouldn't it be going against the beliefs of the sacrament of marriage if a man were marrying a man, or a woman were marrying a woman? Would it truly be an authentic marriage, if marriage is for a man and a woman? I'm not saying that I'm against same sex marriage, but it is a fact that marriage is a christian sacrament, and that Christian's believe that the sacrament of marriage is strictly for a man and a woman. So, I have nothing against same sex marriage, but do homosexuals really have a place in the sacrament of marriage, if they are marrying through a Christian marriage?

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Something tells me, though, that the homosexuals bashing the Christian faith because of their beliefs about homosexuals would not view marriage as a Holy sacrament, seeing as they disagree with Christian beliefs on marriage, which is in fact a Christian sacrament to begin with, if I'm right.

Therefore, if a homosexual wanted to participate in the sacrament of marriage, wouldn't it be going against the beliefs of the sacrament of marriage if a man were marrying a man, or a woman were marrying a woman? Would it truly be an authentic marriage, if marriage is for a man and a woman? I'm not saying that I'm against same sex marriage, but it is a fact that marriage is a christian sacrament, and that Christian's believe that the sacrament of marriage is strictly for a man and a woman. So, I have nothing against same sex marriage, but do homosexuals really have a place in the sacrament of marriage?

There are lots of religious homosexuals. Just because they are gay doesn't mean their beliefs are thrown out the window. I am sure that they would want their marriage to be sanctified as well. And the Christian view of homosexuality isn't exactly a cornerstone of the Christian faith. One's sex is such a petty thing that many are okay (or are slowly coming around) with over-looking it.

[Grizabella]

seeing as they disagree with Christian beliefs on marriage, which is in fact a Christian sacrament to begin with, if I'm right.

But marriage is in no way solely a Christian ceremony anymore. Members of other religions marry, and atheists marry. As Phoenix mentioned, there are a lot of economic benefits that come along with marrying. It's not just about love or holy sacrament (it never really was about those things - historically it has always been about power exchange and economics). Love only came into the mix very recently.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

There are lots of religious homosexuals. Just because they are gay doesn't mean their beliefs are thrown out the window. I am sure that they would want their marriage to be sanctified as well. And the Christian view of homosexuality isn't exactly a cornerstone of the Christian faith. One's sex is such a petty thing that many are okay (or are slowly coming around) with over-looking it.

But if you are Christian, do you not believe what is written in the bible? If you are Christian, it doesn't seem as if you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the Christian faith you are going to believe. It seems to me that Christians should believe all that is written in the bible, or they're not truly following the word of their God. And it is in fact written in the bible that same sex marriage should not be permitted.

Originally Posted by Grizabella

It's not just about love or holy sacrament (it never really was about those things - historically it has always been about power exchange and economics). Love only came into the mix very recently.

I have to disagree with that. What about the few words that are said at nearly every marriage? ""For better, for worse; for richer or for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish 'til death do us part." No where in the bible do I see "For God created man and woman so that they could fulfill each others economical needs." Do you? If you can find a passage such as that, please do share.

And even if marriage is no longer treated as a Christian sacrament among some, it did originate as a Christian sacrament. Doesn't matter how it is treated nowadays, it still did originate and still is a Christian sacrament. If not for the bible, and it's mentioning of marriage, whose to say marriage would even be heard of? Therefore, you cannot truly say marriage is not truly and will remain a Christian sacrament.

[Grizabella]

I have to disagree with that. What about the few words that are said at nearly every marriage? ""For better, for worse; for richer or for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish 'til death do us part."

I said it's not just about love, not that love is completely non-existent. It's pretty hard to deny it makes economical sense to get married.

No where in the bible do I see "For God created man and woman so that they could fulfill each others economical needs." Do you? If you can find a passage such as that, please do share.

I don't so much care what the bible says about the matter, but historically, you're damn right it was about fullfilling economical needs.

"Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match."
Marriage, a History | Psychology Today

And even if marriage is no longer treated as a Christian sacrament among some, it did originate as a Christian sacrament.

Uh, no, it didn't. There were marriages in Greece and Rome and many other ancient cultures long before Christianity even existed. There are certain wedding traditions which originate with Christianity, but marriage certainly does not belong exclusively to Christians.

If not for the bible, and it's mentioning of marriage, whose to say marriage would even be heard of?

The multitude of other cultures which practiced it despite their not being exposed to Christianity. Some christians would like to take credit for the sacred institution of marriage, but it's a completely baseless claim. There are certain marriage ceremonies that have their origins in Christianity, but that does not give them a monopoly on the entire idea.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

I said it's not just about love, not that love is completely non-existent. It's pretty hard to deny it makes economical sense to get married. I don't so much care what the bible says about the matter, but historically, you're damn right it was about fullfilling economical needs.

People may choose to believe that marriage is more so about economics rather than love, but that is not why marriage was originally brought about. Can you truly argue that the biggest part of marriage, is about companionship? Whether someone chooses to enter that commitment they make when they are married because of money, or because of love, the outcome of marriage still remains the same - it is being bonded to another person, whether money is involved or not. You may be marrying for money, but at the same time you are still vowing to love and to cherish the person you are marrying. If not for love, marriage would not hold such an importance to a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Uh, no, it didn't. There were marriages in Greece and Rome and many other ancient cultures long before Christianity even existed. There are certain wedding traditions which originate with Christianity, but marriage certainly does not belong exclusively to Christians.

Then if marriage is not strictly a Christian sacrament, why the heck should homosexuals give a damn what Christians have to say about gay marriage? Why don't they simply carry on their merry way and ignore the Christians who don't agree with what they believe? Wouldn't that make more sense to you than this whole disagreement between Christians and homosexuals?

Originally Posted by Grizabella

The multitude of other cultures which practiced it despite their not being exposed to Christianity. Some christians would like to take credit for the sacred institution of marriage, but it's a completely baseless claim. There are certain marriage ceremonies that have their origins in Christianity, but that does not give them a monopoly on the entire idea.

Yet Christian beliefs did have a large affect on how the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, you said so yourself, didn't you? So while what you say is true, how can you disagree that the Christian beliefs haven't had a large affect on the way the sacrament of marriage is celebrated? Christian beliefs and customs play a part in marriage, whether it's a Christian marriage or not.

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

People may choose to believe that marriage is more so about economics rather than love, but that is not why marriage was originally brought about. Can you truly argue that the biggest part of marriage, is about companionship? Whether someone chooses to enter that commitment they make when they are married because of money, or because of love, the outcome of marriage still remains the same - it is being bonded to another person, whether money is involved or not. You may be marrying for money, but at the same time you are still vowing to love and to cherish the person you are marrying. If not for love, marriage would not hold such an importance to a lot of people.

Exactly why gays should be able to marry

Then if marriage is not strictly a Christian sacrament, why the heck should homosexuals give a damn what Christians have to say about gay marriage? Why don't they simply carry on their merry way and ignore the Christians who don't agree with what they believe? Wouldn't that make more sense to you than this whole disagreement between Christians and homosexuals?

Because marriage is a legal term now, and you get a lot of benefits that aren't given to you in a civil union
The Difference Between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

Yet Christian beliefs did have a large affect on how the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, you said so yourself, didn't you? So while what you say is true, how can you disagree that the Christian beliefs haven't had a large affect on the way the sacrament of marriage is celebrated? Christian beliefs and customs play a part in marriage, whether it's a Christian marriage or not.

It doesn't matter. The first amendment says no laws are to be made that cater to a certain belief. Marriage is a legal term.

[Grizabella]

People may choose to believe that marriage is more so about economics rather than love, but that is not why marriage was originally brought about. Can you truly argue that the biggest part of marriage, is about companionship? Whether someone chooses to enter that commitment they make when they are married because of money, or because of love, the outcome of marriage still remains the same - it is being bonded to another person, whether money is involved or not. You may be marrying for money, but at the same time you are still vowing to love and to cherish the person you are marrying. If not for love, marriage would not hold such an importance to a lot of people.

Yes, it is. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but there is no historian in the world who argues that marriage originated as a way to promote love. Modernly, you're right, love is probably the most important factor taken into consideration - but historically, love has only become important very recently - one or two centuries tops.

Then if marriage is not strictly a Christian sacrament, why the heck should homosexuals give a damn what Christians have to say about gay marriage? Why don't they simply carry on their merry way and ignore the Christians who don't agree with what they believe? Wouldn't that make more sense to you than this whole disagreement between Christians and homosexuals?

Because Christians insist on imposing their beliefs on them in a manner that restricts their rights. The reason homosexuals care what Christians say about gay marriage is that it is primarily Christians who are trying to deny them their rights. What would make sense to me is Christians getting off their high horses and leaving the secular world alone.

Yet Christian beliefs did have a large affect on how the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, you said so yourself, didn't you?

No, that's actually not what I said. Certain wedding ceremonies arose from Christian traditions, but there are other traditions that arose from other cultures. This is yet another example of Christians trying to hijack a very universal tradition. Marriage is not Christian. Marriage has never been exclusively Christian. The legal definition, the part that matters to the gay marriage debate, has nothing to do with Christianity.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by DoesThisLookInfected?

Because marriage is a legal term now, and you get a lot of benefits that aren't given to you in a civil union
The Difference Between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

Registered couples are granted privileges as well. While privileges granted to married couples may be more superior, I wouldn't be complaining when gays are also given certain rights. If gays were not allowed to register as couples, that would be another story. But they are in fact allowed to certain rights, so therefore I do not believe that gays are treated as terribly as some make it seem. While marriage may not be allowed to gays, it's not as if they are treated as scum and given no rights whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Because Christians insist on imposing their beliefs on them in a manner that restricts their rights. The reason homosexuals care what Christians say about gay marriage is that it is primarily Christians who are trying to deny them their rights. What would make sense to me is Christians getting off their high horses and leaving the secular world alone.

Hmm, yet it's expected that Christians change beliefs that they have had for thousand of years in order to accommodate others? It's expected that Christians betray their beliefs that are clearly written in the bible in order to make gays feel more included? While I may not agree with many of the Christian beliefs, I would not be in favor of expecting a whole religion to change some of it's main beliefs and customs so that I could get my way. I'm not saying Christians aren't guilty of this as well, as they should respect what those who are not against gay marriage believe as well. But unfortunately, beliefs of Christians or any other Religions are not always going to be fair towards others. But hey, that's life.

[Grizabella]

Hmm, yet it's expected that Christians change beliefs that they have had for thousand of years in order to accommodate others? It's expected that Christians betray their beliefs that are clearly written in the bible in order to make gays feel more included?

No, it isn't. Most homosexuals aren't lobbying to force churches to marry them, they are lobbying for the state to marry them. Gay marriage can be legalized without forcing churches to perform them. It's working quite well in Canada - courts are required to marry religious couples, but if it is against a certain church's beliefs, they are not required to perform the marriage.

[slickguy55]

Concrete Girl- Don't even bother arguing. People like Grizabella don't want to hear your reasoning. You can throw facts in their face, you can give them links that prove a specific point wrong, and they write it off as "meaningless". They blame Christians for forcing views on people, yet they are the type of people who won't stop to get their way; and even when they do get their way they are offended and feel they haven't achieved anything unless they make everyone (even people in private organizations) see things their way. This is because the they are followers of liberalism, and the ultimate goal of liberalism in this country can not succeed without silencing those who oppose their way, that should be a hint that their form of Government is wrong; on the other hand, the republic with a small federal Government, which is the goal of Conservatives, can operate with opposing views.

This is why I am no longer debating this topic and just dropping by every so often, especially in this thread.

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Hmm, yet it's expected that Christians change beliefs that they have had for thousand of years in order to accommodate others? It's expected that Christians betray their beliefs that are clearly written in the bible in order to make gays feel more included? While I may not agree with many of the Christian beliefs, I would not be in favor of expecting a whole religion to change some of it's main beliefs and customs so that I could get my way. I'm not saying Christians aren't guilty of this as well, as they should respect what those who are not against gay marriage believe as well. But unfortunately, beliefs of Christians or any other Religions are not always going to be fair towards others. But hey, that's life.

You are a smart girl. This is clearly happening, yet these people deny that their agenda has any plans to infiltrate the church. There are 2000 years of church teachings set in stone, and the gay agenda want to come in and say "let me just cross out this part, delete that, modernize this...and we're good".

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Registered couples are granted privileges as well. While privileges granted to married couples may be more superior, I wouldn't be complaining when gays are also given certain rights. If gays were not allowed to register as couples, that would be another story. But they are in fact allowed to certain rights, so therefore I do not believe that gays are treated as terribly as some make it seem. While marriage may not be allowed to gays, it's not as if they are treated as scum and given no rights whatsoever.

So its okay for gays to be treated as second-class citizens as long as they have some rights?

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Registered couples are granted privileges as well. While privileges granted to married couples may be more superior, I wouldn't be complaining when gays are also given certain rights. If gays were not allowed to register as couples, that would be another story. But they are in fact allowed to certain rights, so therefore I do not believe that gays are treated as terribly as some make it seem. While marriage may not be allowed to gays, it's not as if they are treated as scum and given no rights whatsoever.

Why shouldn't they receive the same rights? You aren't married with a civil union.
Our own state doesn't grant legal benefits to same sex couples. And we're not the only one.

Hmm, yet it's expected that Christians change beliefs that they have had for thousand of years in order to accommodate others? It's expected that Christians betray their beliefs that are clearly written in the bible in order to make gays feel more included? While I may not agree with many of the Christian beliefs, I would not be in favor of expecting a whole religion to change some of it's main beliefs and customs so that I could get my way. I'm not saying Christians aren't guilty of this as well, as they should respect what those who are not against gay marriage believe as well. But unfortunately, beliefs of Christians or any other Religions are not always going to be fair towards others. But hey, that's life.

1. There are multiple interpretations of the bible
2. That shouldn't be a question. Remember the first amendment. You can't make a law or not make a law because it accommodates a certain religion.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

So its okay for gays to be treated as second-class citizens as long as they have some rights?

Putting words in her mouth much?

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Putting words in her mouth much?

It's basically what she's saying...

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

So its okay for gays to be treated as second-class citizens as long as they have some rights?

If gays were being treated as second class citizens, and as terribly as they let on, they would not have any rights whatsoever. I do agree that gays should be allowed to have the same rights as married couples, only as registered couples, but I do not agree that gays should be allowed to participate in the sacrament of marriage in a Christian church, as that is controversial to Christian beliefs.

No, it isn't. Most homosexuals aren't lobbying to force churches to marry them, they are lobbying for the state to marry them. Gay marriage can be legalized without forcing churches to perform them. It's working quite well in Canada - courts are required to marry religious couples, but if it is against a certain church's beliefs, they are not required to perform the marriage.

Then if they are fighting to be married by the state, again, WHY should they care what Christians will not allow in their church!? I would understand this if there were far more Christians who not only refused to marry gays in their churches, but were fighting to make marriage illegal to Christians all together. But most Christians are not fighting to completely outlaw gay marriage, they simply will not permit it in their church. The Christians are not the ones making the laws here. Therefore, the Christians should not be the ones who are getting attacked. The government makes the laws, not the Christians, am I right? So again, why are so many homosexuals so intent on attacking Christians? It makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I find it ridiculous.

[Grizabella]

Then if they are fighting to be married by the state, again, WHY should they care what Christians will not allow in their church!?

Please, please, PLEASE read what I say before you respond - I already answered this. They don't care about what the hell Christians allow in their precious churches. Churches can do whatever the hell they want within their churches. They only care because a large group of Christians are trying to prevent SECULAR marriages from being legalized, something which the churches have absolutely no right to. Nearly every group opposing gay marriage is Christian - there are very few others fighting it so much. If churches would stay the hell away from secular laws, homosexuals wouldn't care about religious marriages.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by DoesThisLookInfected?

That shouldn't be a question. Remember the first amendment. You can't make a law or not make a law because it accommodates a certain religion.

Exactly. Just as Christians are not going to change their beliefs in order to accommodate homosexuals, because that would be going against not the constitution, but the bible. So therefore, can't you at least understand where Christians are coming from?

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by DoesThisLookInfected?

It's basically what she's saying...

No not really. I don't think that not having marriage benefits qualifies a person as a "second class citizen", that is a gross over-exaggeration. That would mean any single person who is lacking those benefits is also a second class citizen. Not to mention, the lack of the benefits doesn't come with harassment, being disregarded from protection of laws, and it doesn't limit their ability to get a career.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

No not really. I don't think that not having marriage benefits qualifies a person as a "second class citizen", that is a gross over-exaggeration. That would mean any single person who is lacking those benefits is also a second class citizen. Not to mention, the lack of the benefits doesn't come with harassment, being disregarded from protection of laws, and it doesn't limit their ability to get a career.

No. Denying people the right to these benefits specifically because they are of a certain group is treating a person as a second-class citizen.

Section 15 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Please, please, PLEASE read what I say before you respond - I already answered this. They don't care about what the hell Christians allow in their precious churches. Churches can do whatever the hell they want within their churches. They only care because a large group of Christians are trying to prevent SECULAR marriages from being legalized, something which the churches have absolutely no right to. Nearly every group opposing gay marriage is Christian - there are very few others fighting it so much. If churches would stay the hell away from secular laws, homosexuals wouldn't care about religious marriages.

lol i like how you edited your post before i could catch you. You said "You like putting words in my mouth much?" in response to my comment saying "even if you give them a link that proves a certain point wrong, they write it off as meaningless" And then you realize that you did JUST THAT, so you edited your post. It kinda sounded hard to believe for you, like it wasn't something that you would do, then you realized you DID do it.

Who is THEY? Some people have argued that they DO want to do that, even on here. So probably a lot more people want to change the church than you believe/ want to believe. It is obvious that you are not speaking for the whole movement, and there are parts of the movement that are more threatening to the church that you do not speak for.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

No. Denying people the right to these benefits specifically because they are of a certain group is treating a person as a second-class citizen.

Section 15 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."

No, I defined to you what a second class citizen is. Denying them a SINGLE benefit that comes from marriage doesn't qualify them under all of the categories of a second class citizen.

- And thats nice, I'll pick up the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for some vacation reading next time i go up to Canada. Oh, and that would be never.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

- And thats nice, I'll pick up the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for some vacation reading next time i go up to Canada. Oh, and that would be never.

Are you capable of participating in a friendly debate without becoming arrogant and offensive? I live in Canada. And just so you know, our laws are just as valid as yours in the States. So tone down your ethnocentric attitude if you please.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Okay, here's a simple resolution. Why not simply stop whining about others beliefs, and let people believe whatever the heck they want to believe? If someone wants to insult gay marriage and demand that it be illegal, oh well, so be it. Nothing prevents two people from being together, and whining about how evil Christians and Religion is isn't going to change anything, nor is whining about how nonreligious and terrible homosexuals are. If someone wants to whine at any homosexual about how sinful and unpure they are, who the heck cares? If you care about someone enough, do you need a pointless piece of paper to tell you that you have dedicated your life to them? Not really. In fact, what is the point of marraige whatsoever? I personally think it is ridiculous that such hate has formed over different groups of people because of something that's really not that big of a deal to begin with.

IF IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL TO YOU THEN JUST LET SAME-SEX COUPLES HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS!

If you worked at McDonalds with a guy and he was getting paid a dollar more per hour than you for doing the same job, would you just sit there and say "oh well!"? Of course not. Just because you are a female doesn't mean you deserve less pay, and just because a couple is off the same gender doesn't mean they deserve fewer rights. The way you brush off prohibiting people equal rights as being nothing is appalling.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

No. Denying people the right to these benefits specifically because they are of a certain group is treating a person as a second-class citizen.

Section 15 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."

And Leviticus 18:22 states: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" I am not saying that bible scripture is superior to law, but rather that the bible is a bit like Christian law. Christians are not trying to deny gays the right to be together, but gays DO NOT have the right to be married, for marriage is a sacrament for a man and a woman. Christians follow and are always going to follow the word of their God, however unfair homosexuals seem to think it is.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

And Leviticus 18:22 states: [/font] "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" I am not saying that bible scripture is superior to law, but rather that the bible is a bit like Christian law. Christians are not trying to deny gays the right to be together, but gays DO NOT have the right to be married, for marriage is a sacrament for a man and a woman. Christians follow and are always going to follow the word of their God, however unfair homosexuals seem to think it is.

So don't allow homosexuals to get married in the church. But not allowing them to get legally married is a breach of their rights.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Khadra

IF IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL TO YOU THEN JUST LET SAME-SEX COUPLES HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS!

If you worked at McDonalds with a guy and he was getting paid a dollar more per hour than you for doing the same job, would you just sit there and say "oh well!"? Of course not. Just because you are a female doesn't mean you deserve less pay, and just because a couple is off the same gender doesn't mean they deserve fewer rights. The way you brush off prohibiting people equal rights as being nothing is appalling.

Oh come on already. First of all, that's why you become successful in life so that you're not at the mercy of a boss who would honestly do that to you. I wouldn't expect a decent amount of pay working at McDonalds anyways. And how many times do I have to say this? Christians will not allow gays to be married in their church because it is against the word of their God. If I were a homosexual, I would be happy that I had the right to be in a relationship with the person I cared about. I would let Christians believe what they have chosen to believe, and I would not argue with their beliefs. What Christian's believe is not going to change because the gays don't agree. That's just not the way that it works, no matter how angry it may make homosexuals.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Oh come on already. First of all, that's why you become successful in life so that you're not at the mercy of a boss who would honestly do that to you. I wouldn't expect a decent amount of pay working at McDonalds anyways. And how many times do I have to say this? Christians will not allow gays to be married in their church because it is against the word of their God. If I were a homosexual, I would be happy that I had the right to be in a relationship with the person I cared about. I would let Christians believe what they have chosen to believe, and I would not argue with their beliefs. What Christian's believe is not going to change because the gays don't agree. That's just not the way that it works, no matter how angry it may make homosexuals.

Khadra was not talking about marriage in the church, but about allowing a couple to be legally married in the courts, thereby giving them the same rights as heterosexual couples who have state marriages.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Oh come on already. First of all, that's why you become successful in life so that you're not at the mercy of a boss who would honestly do that to you. I wouldn't expect a decent amount of pay working at McDonalds anyways. And how many times do I have to say this? Christians will not allow gays to be married in their church because it is against the word of their God. If I were a homosexual, I would be happy that I had the right to be in a relationship with the person I cared about. I would let Christians believe what they have chosen to believe, and I would not argue with their beliefs. What Christian's believe is not going to change because the gays don't agree. That's just not the way that it works, no matter how angry it may make homosexuals.

Don't give me that garbage about not caring what you get paid at McDonalds. It has nothing to do with getting paid a small amount. IT'S ABOUT BEING PAID LESS THAN A MALE EMPLOYEE SIMPLY FOR BEING FEMALE. Are you okay with being paid less than a guy for doing the same job he is?

I don't give a crap if christians let gays marry in their church or not. Same-sex couples can get married in court houses. This has nothing to do with religion. It's about having equal rights. By prohibiting marriage of same-sex couples you are denying them equal rights. Ban them from your church if you want, I don't care, but you have no right at all to not allow them to be legally married through a court house or whatever.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Khadra

I don't give a crap if christians let gays marry in their church or not. Same-sex couples can get married in court houses. This has nothing to do with religion. It's about having equal rights. By prohibiting marriage of same-sex couples you are denying them equal rights. Ban them from your church if you want, I don't care, but you have no right at all to not allow them to be legally married through a court house or whatever.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Khadra was not talking about marriage in the church, but about allowing a couple to be legally married in the courts, thereby giving them the same rights as heterosexual couples who have state marriages.

But what's the difference? Marriage is marriage. Gays have the right to fight for their rights to get married. But just the same, any person who is against gay marriage also has the right to fight in order to make gay marriage illegal. Everyone has rights to what they believe, no matter who deems their beliefs as unfair.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Are you capable of participating in a friendly debate without becoming arrogant and offensive? I live in Canada. And just so you know, our laws are just as valid as yours in the States. So tone down your ethnocentric attitude if you please.

I never said your laws weren't valid. But they are only valid IN CANADA.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

But what's the difference? Marriage is marriage. Gays have the right to fight for their rights to get married. But just the same, any person who is against gay marriage also has the right to fight in order to make gay marriage illegal. Everyone has rights to what they believe, no matter who deems their beliefs as unfair.

The difference is that the religious people are infringing their beliefs on the rest of society. Gay people are not infringing their beliefs on anyone. Legalizing gay marriage has NO impact on the church. Keeping it illegal hurts the gay people though.

The government does not represent any religion and cannot discriminate based on religious values. Prohibiting same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples IS discrimination. So, unless you're okay with being paid less than men for doing the same job, you can't think giving straight people more rights than gay people is right.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

But what's the difference? Marriage is marriage. Gays have the right to fight for their rights to get married. But just the same, any person who is against gay marriage also has the right to fight in order to make gay marriage illegal. Everyone has rights to what they believe, no matter who deems their beliefs as unfair.

Its an issue of equality. If it were an issue of morals or ethics there would be a lot more room for people to disagree, but as I showed before, law dictates that everyone must be treated equally, and denying homosexuals the right to marry in a court is not legally sound, so I really don't know how they get away with it in the States.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Khadra

The difference is that the religious people are infringing their beliefs on the rest of society. Gay people are not infringing their beliefs on anyone. Legalizing gay marriage has NO impact on the church. Keeping it illegal hurts the gay people though.

The government does not represent any religion and cannot discriminate based on religious values. Prohibiting same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples IS discrimination. So, unless you're okay with being paid less than men for doing the same job, you can't think giving straight people more rights than gay people is right.

Your comparison to receiving a lower pay than an equal in rank worker is invalid. Why? Because it is stated in the constitution that woman have equal rights to men. Show me which amendment of the constitution tells you that gays have the right to marry? Let me think. There's an amendment that abolishes slavery. An amendment for the rights of Woman. But still, I do not recall there being a right for gays. Therefore, and I'm not saying it's right, BUT anyone who is against gay marriage STILL has the RIGHT to fight to abolish gay marriage.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

I never said your laws weren't valid. But they are only valid IN CANADA.

Well, in that case how about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? This is valid throughout all of the United Nations.

"Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind."

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind."

IN THIS DECLARATION.
And where in the Deceleration does it mention the right to gay marriage?
You proved my point for me, thank you.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Your comparison to receiving a lower pay than an equal in rank worker is invalid. Why? Because it is stated in the constitution that woman have equal rights to men. Show me which amendment of the constitution tells you that gays have the right to marry? Let me think. There's an amendment that abolishes slavery. An amendment for the rights of Woman. But still, I do not recall there being a right for gays. Therefore, and I'm not saying it's right, BUT anyone who is against gay marriage STILL has the RIGHT to fight to abolish gay marriage.

The reason there were amendments for women and slaves was because these people were not considered persons under the law, but rather property. That is why they had to fight for their rights.

So, unless you are saying that gays are not persons under the law, they must be given the same rights and freedoms as all of the other people.

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

IN THIS DECLARATION.
And where in the Deceleration does it mention the right to gay marriage?
You proved my point for me, thank you.

"this" Declaration is the basis for all human rights throughout all of the United Nations. And the UN must follow that code. The UN includes the United States.

Everyone has the right to marriage. Everyone. Why should we put gays in a little bubble by themselves? We might as well also say that we can contest African Americans' right to marry because it does not specifically say that they have the right to. Homosexuals ARE people and therefore they, along with everyone else, must legally have all of the rights that the Declaration promises.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

The reason there were amendments for women and slaves was because these people were not considered persons under the law, but rather property. That is why they had to fight for their rights.

So, unless you are saying that gays are not persons under the law, they must be given the same rights and freedoms as all of the other people.

So people under the age of 21 who live in the US are not considered persons under the law because they do not have the right to drink alcohol? Just because one law would be made against gays, prohibiting them to get married, would not mean that they were being treated as second class citizens and that the other rights in the constitution do not apply to them. If that were the case, those who are under 21 would also not be able to vote when they turned eighteen, nor would they have the right to follow their own Religion, etc. Simply because certain amendments of the constitution limit people from rights that others may have does not mean the people who are limited are considered persons who are not under the law.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Well, in that case how about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? This is valid throughout all of the United Nations.

"Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind."

yeah... how about 'em???

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

"this" Declaration is the basis for all human rights throughout all of the United Nations. And the UN must follow that code. The UN includes the United States.

Everyone has the right to marriage. Everyone. Why should we put gays in a little bubble by themselves? We might as well also say that we can contest African Americans' right to marry because it does not specifically say that they have the right to. Homosexuals ARE people and therefore they, along with everyone else, must legally have all of the rights that the Declaration promises.

According to that very declaration you mentioned:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Apparently the very declaration you are speaking of also leaves out homosexuals.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

So people under the age of 21 who live in the US are not considered persons under the law because they do not have the right to drink alcohol? Just because one law would be made against gays, prohibiting them to get married, would not mean that they were being treated as second class citizens and that the other rights in the constitution do not apply to them. If that were the case, those who are under 21 would also not be able to vote when they turned eighteen, nor would they have the right to follow their own Religion, etc. Simply because certain amendments of the constitution limit people from rights that others may have does not mean the people who are limited are considered persons who are not under the law.

No. Because everyone (including women, visible minorities, and gays) are allowed to smoke, drink, vote, etc once they reach legal age. This is equality.