Homosexual marriage

Okay, apologies if this has already been dealt with, but it appears to be a VERY intense topic in some circles, so here it is:

Do you agree with allowing homosexuals to marry?

I will post my own comments in the thread so as not to unfairly bias the polling.

I know I'm new here, but felt the need to chime in on this one.

I completely agree with it. I've always felt that love is love, same sex or otherwise. In my eyes, marriage is a ceremony expressing the love of one to another, and committing oneself to your partner.

I am absolutely for gay marriage. Not civil partnerships, but marriage. Unless of course we did away entirely with marriage and simply called it a civil partnership! (Which makes a lot more sense in terms of wording in my view anyway)

I would love to have the ability to one day marry my boyfriend if ever I was in that situation

I see no logical reason why the state would ever oppose gay marriage while at the same time supporting equal rights

For those curious of The Temple's stance:

TOTJO Front Page wrote: In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, degree of ability, age, etc.

This is a big topic in the US these days.

I really think they need to change the mindset. To me, marriage is a religious ceremony and should not have any government involvement.

The government needs involvement in what I call legal partnership license/contract. Much as Akkarin describes.

How I envision this is:

Regardless of sex, if two people agree to a legal partnership they are legally joined, as if they were married by our current laws.

Marriage is a private ceremony between two people/souls. It can be done at a church or merely a sworn commitment between each other in a private ceremony.

Karn wrote: This is a big topic in the US these days.

I really think they need to change the mindset. To me, marriage is a religious ceremony and should not have any government involvement.

The government needs involvement in what I call legal partnership license/contract. Much as Akkarin describes.

How I envision this is:

Regardless of sex, if two people agree to a legal partnership they are legally joined, as if they were married by our current laws.

Marriage is a private ceremony between two people/souls. It can be done at a church or merely a sworn commitment between each other in a private ceremony.

It is also a big issue over here right now. We currently have two major petitions doing the rounds nationally - the Coalition For Equal Marriage (seeking to allow same-sex marriage) and the Coalition For Marriage (seeking to preserve traditional marriage between a man and a woman).

Both of these are backed by high profile religious and political figures and there is a lot of debate and argument going on over the definition of 'marriage' and whether the government has the right to redefine it to allow same-sex marriage.

I personally am very undecided over the whole thing. I believe in equality for all, but I also believe that the government has no right to tell religions what they can and can't do. Or, in this case, must do. The issue actually causes me quite a lot of internal struggle.

I do like Karn's solution however, and that's sort of the way that I had been thinking about it myself. Everyone should be able to legally marry, but religions could still retain their individual stances over what sort of marriages they will conduct.

I say if homosexuals want to get married and be tormented like heterosexuals as well as give away half their stuff in the event of a divorce then they should be able to :lol:

The only reason most religions frown on it is because they're stuck in an archaic bigotted way of thinking that was created by the personall preferances of a small handful of men...many of these same fools still believe that the world is only 5000 years old...despite all the evidence proving otherwise....

For one thing, I feel like the use of the term "homosexual" is quite derogatory. Maybe it is just a regional thing, but the people around here who use that word seem to be less then sympathetic. Not that I am personally offended, only thought I would point that out.

With that out of the way, all people have the right to marry or do whatever they want, within the law. There shouldn't be an argument. We've been down this civil rights path before and it wasn't pretty. Women and African Americans have been here, along with others, yet some inside these groups of people are opposed to others having equal rights.

I don't really see how the term "homosexual" is dergatory, I wouldn't be offended if someone said to "you god damn heterosexual".

Anyways, I think gay marriage is fine, how does it make sense that two people who love each other can't get married, but some wife beating moron is allowed to? This is a really contentious subject though, could very well split the CoE. Some priests have performed gay marriages already and many priests are openly gay.

"A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies."

Hear is how I see this and it may be right to some and not so right to others. People are who they are with a man/woman or man/man or woman/woman or any color or race or religion. You can not help who you love as Jedi we should now this and I think that is where it should end we are forgiving and loving people as well as being well educated in all walks of life.

Definitely. I think I'd probably be married by now if it was legal

With that out of the way, all people have the right to marry or do whatever they want, within the law. There shouldn't be an argument.

Within the law.

Just to point out a problem with that reasoning, right now gay marriage is illegal according to federal and most states' law. So you are inadvertently implying that gays have no right to marry, since its currently illegal. It's the same as saying slaves had no right to freedom when freeing oneself from one's master without their permission was illegal. I know what you meant , but I wanted to point out how language can change meaning, especially in this case. And some people actually hold that stance- the government can do no wrong, everything it does has a good reason behind it.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is ethically right for it to be illegal (or if something is legal doesn't make it ethically right to be legal, conversely). People have rights, even if it is denied them by the government. But that's my opinion