I'm the Fire staataa!

A murder can be pre-meditated, but rarely is divorce pre-meditated, just like how manslaughter is not. But the end result of a pre-meditated murder or accidental murder is the same, just like how a gay marriage or a divorce breaks ultimately God's Word. Yet, does that mean we should arrest people because we think they will commit murder? Surely not... and that's why the right to marry is not made exclusive only to couples who will ultimately avoid divorce. When a gay couple decide to marry, they consequently take to breaking the Word, and will therefore be "committing the crime" straight away, with no possibility of making it religiously valid.* Maybe in the eyes of the omnipotent, it's all the same, but I don't think the church (whichever) is God.

As far as the commandments go, I would suggest that a universal "Thou shalt not kill" encourages followers to be wary to avoid killing in any way, even accidentally... to be diligent and careful. I won't go any further in defending this though, as what the commandment means is open to interpretation, and when it all boils down I probably wouldn't agree with most of it.

(* I must apologise for comparing homosexuality to murder, as if it were a crime. I'm only taking an opposite perspective to my views for academic purposes.)

I think Mark's point is that if a marriage is apparently religiously valid, it at least has the potential to result in a religiously correct and successful union. If two men or two women enter marriage, it is already incorrect, and cannot result in a satisfactory union, by religion. Whether a marriage will last or not is not something that can be said confidently when a couple marries, so one would default with the premise that it will be successful (after all, that is usually the intention).

Essentially, because divorce is a line that is crossed after the ceremony, its occurrance cannot be used to justify prevention of a religious marriage, as not all marriages end in divorce. Since homosexual marriage breaks a religious rule (or few) before the ceremony, it can be denied on Scriptural grounds or whatever.

Which brings up the question -- if few people are adhering to the concept of marriage for religious purposes (instead for tradition), how would one justify denying homosexual marriages? Or perhaps the whole idea needs to be ramped back so only religious people can get married and then divorce is denied to them?

mjs416, I imagine that those stats are from a fairly general polling?

I wonder, of those 40-50%...

How many actually pledged, "to death do us part." As that phrase has been fading from the vows.

How many are actually religous. Even if they married in a church, with vows read from a priest/pastor/etc., it is often done because of tradition, and not that either hold to that faith.

Of those who are religous, how many hold to a faith which disaproves of divorce.

I haven't been to the forums lately cause I've been really busy, but I am glad to see everyone expressing their thoughts so maturely. Thanks for keeping this post alive with your comments and votes! Good stuff!

I personally feel that the religious aspect of marriage should not even be considered anymore to date. It is fact, that anywhere from 40-50% of marriages end in divorce in the US (depending on your source). If you realize your marriage isn’t working and get a divorce, you have broken your word to God about being with your mate until death do you part.

I do not believe it to be valid that people use the entire religious concept as an argument point since ½ of all marriages, in present day, are breaking a theological promise anyways. I would hold someone’s opinion of “Well, I just don’t like gays” higher in my mind then using the religion scapegoat.

I agree with Mark Hensler

Quote: I'm six foot tall. I didn't decide to be six foot, it was just in my genes. I'm of the belief that sexual orientation is a choice and not something "programmed from birth". So, I would compare homosexuality to an occupation. Something some grow up wanting to be and others just find themselves there. But you can still choose to change (or not).

When I say 'church' I'm being general and not specific to any one strain!

I have to take issue with these last few comments about "the church". Are you talking about the Roman Catholic church? There are a lot of other Christian religious organizations that are not Roman Catholic and often disapprove of their practices. Ever hear of the Reformation? 500 years later and people still think that Roman Catholicism is the only form of Christianity.

What I find hypocritical is when people use the Bible against things like homosexuality, but ignore other prohibitions in the same book. If you're going to use the Bible as a basis for values you have to take all of it, not just the parts that suit you.

P.S. I'm really enjoying this discussion! Thanks to everyone for being so civil (so far), and to tenchi for having the guts to bring it up in the first place.

The church is the most hypocritical institution going!

WOW, was on the news tonight there have been over 11,000 abuse claims against the churches in USA alone since 1950. 80% to young boys

Thats just in USA, imagine what the number would be with the rest of the worlds victims added to that, then you have all the unreported ones ... eek

From what we see on the news, the church is mostly behind this anti same sex marriage thing (we get all your news headlines), and are pushing hard for the change.
To a lot of us outside of the circle (well arent really cause if its allowed in one country, will follow suit in others) it seems the church is against it because they keep getting caught doing same sex things, if they can't why should anyone else kinda thing.

kinda screwed up really (no pun intended)

Quote: I find it ironic that few find it a problem that atheists and other non-Christians can take vows in a church, but not gays.

Exactly! I too am atheist and even though my parents wanted me to have a church wedding I refused on principle that I would have been hypocrytical to make religious vows when I don't believe it. People should have the right to marriage/legal union whatever their sexual preferences and the church needs to live in the real world IMO after all their practices are based on a fairytale!!

Well it has become a pretty big topic of discussion in the US, although I think there are more important things...

I personally don't think that many marriages are at all based on religion any more! Even those carried out in church aren't, IME, done because the couple are religious more that it is still considered romantic to have a big white church wedding!!!

Does "marriage" have to be Christian marriage?

I think that they should be allowed civil marriages, the church is always going to be biased and judgemental (even though it has far too many faults of its own!) but so that they get equal rights as human beings they should be legally allowed.

Hmm. I'm hoping you all read this as the thoughts and beliefs of myself and not of the position I hold on these forums. I always find it a sticky situation when people in power voice opinions (such as employers to employees), as it can sometimes intimidate the people under their authority. That said, this is a topic I personally have strong beliefs about and wish to voice them. I will not biasedly (is that even a word) censor anyone for voicing a contradictory opinion, and I will allow this thread to remain as long as discussion/debate remains calm and cool.

I am opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to gay unions. If it comes to a vote, I'll likely vote against gay marriage and for gay unions simply because I think that is the closest thing to what I believe that could possibly be pass.

I do not approve of homosexuality. I do not hate homosexuals. And I do not treat them any different than heterosexuals. I simply do not approve of their sexual orientation.

As far as "Separation of Church and State". The intent was to separate the state from the church, not the church from the state. In the era this was conceive, the state dictated which was the official church. As was noted earlier, there are numerous references to God and religion in many of our (Americans) country's documents.

(I am religous. I'm a Christian - a Bible thumping baptist. )

who gives a poop

gays are just like teenagers, they can't so they do ...

marriages around the world are in decline, defacto seems to be the flavour of choice and in many countries the defacto laws are equal to marriage laws, ie. after so many years everything is split. So at the end of the day it's only a bit of paper.

All this time and effort into nothing, sheesh, why not put the effort into stomping out abuse in the churchs, how many abuse charges have come out in the last couple of years, heaps. So to put a religious angle on this is a sad excuse. And in some ways double standards. "we can abuse our child but may not marry same sex .." they want to punish gays but let the real offenders go free?
This is a messed up world.

Give them the right to marry and less will do it.

I will not state my personal opinion about gays...as I do not wish to offend anyone

However, I believe that it doesn't matter whether this is right or wrong, as the Mayor of said town is being insubordinate and unconsitutional, due to the fact that the Governor (Arnold) of California has requested that he reverse his decision. Also, when the President has stated his opinion and is trying to have a law passed PREVENTING this said activity, then it is almost unpatriotic to go and let it be rampant.

Also, talking about separation of Church and State...I believe you will recall that this was originally created so we didn't have a monarchial religion (England), and that the "founding fathers" were in fact, Christian or believed in God. Examine the language of the law, and you will find that God and other religious aspects are incorporated throughout, and there is no way to dissassociate the two.

-Has there ever been an atheist President (no)?
-How many have been Christian (many, if not all)?
-How many have been affiliated with other religions (few to none)?

exactly! In this country there is supposed to be this idea about separation of church and state, which unfortunately has, slowly but surely, been dwindling away (especially as a result of the current administration).
Too often in our times have I (as Im sure many others as well) seen the government get involved in things they really have no jurisdiction over. Just a few examples from this year alone: charging for email, a california Tax for shopping online (!!!!), and now marriage.
One last thing, if anyone brings up that the government is trying to take care of the children of this country, by saying that a child needs both parents to grow up properly, just look at the millions of single parent homes in and around the country. I give major credit to those women (and men) who raise their children by themselves.

I struggle with the religious aspect as well. I'm not religious, but I don't think that religions should be controlled by the government, either, but then what about hatred and discrimination. Argh! A quagmire!

I agree. I don't think it's the government's business to decide who should and should not be allowed to get married. Espeically when they're basing it on something so blatantly discriminatory. In Canada we have this thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says that everyone should have the same rights regardless of race, sex, etc. I'm not sure if it says sexual orientation in there or not, but it's within the intent of the Charter. In general, I don't think it's the government's place to make moral decisions on matters that don't cause harm to others.

On a religious level I sort of struggle with this issue. The Bible does talk about marriage being a union between a man and a woman etc. etc. but I'm not sure what the intent was there. I'd have to read more about it, for sure.

I think that marriage is a religious term and should be kept for those who see unions as religious. Of course, this includes a large number of religious gay individuals, so that's not a "solution" for the homophobic. I also think that civil unions are just dandy and should be encouraged as much as possible between whatever two people want to enter into them.

Frankly, I don't think it's the government's place to dictate religious practices, but I'm a flaming hippie tree hugger, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.