This is a discussion on Gay Marriage: Equal Rights or Extra Rights? within the General Discussion forums, part of the Non Wrestling Forums category; Originally Posted by Dj1223
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
Relgion is probably(IMO) by far the most hypocritical argument against gay marriage. Everyone always says "It's right there in the bible", but they ignore other parts of the bible that condemn their own actions. Sure the bible says men shall not lay with men and women shall not lay with women, but it says nothing about gay marriage. In fact, Jesus actually talks about marriage in numerous books, non of which is on the topic of gay marriage. He says that divorce should only happy in the event of unfaithfulness. Now, I wonder how many of those over 50% of marriages that end in divorce actually was a result of unfaithfulness. I believe that's a lot of sinful people right there and I'm willing to bet that a lot of them don't support gay marriage. Combine that with the "Let he without sin cast the first stone" idea and none of those people have the right to tell gay people they can't get married. I wonder how many laws against gay marriage would be passed then.
I got some more arguments, but I have to go to class. I'll edit them in later.
What the hell??? Okay lets come back to reality, if it is against religion for men and women to be together in a sexual relationship, what in the blue hell makes you think its okay for them to be married? Marriage is an extension of showing your love for another person, and clearly men and men, women and women can not be allowed to love eachother in a tradional way as a man and women can. Pretty much, its assumed that if you are not supposed to be having sex with someone from the same gender, then you shouldnt be getting married to them either.
What the hell??? Okay lets come back to reality, if it is against religion for men and women to be together in a sexual relationship, what in the blue hell makes you think its okay for them to be married? Marriage is an extension of showing your love for another person, and clearly men and men, women and women can not be allowed to love eachother in a tradional way as a man and women can. Pretty much, its assumed that if you are not supposed to be having sex with someone from the same gender, then you shouldnt be getting married to them either.
You're confusing a sexual relationship with a mental/emotional relationship. By no means does marriage=sex. Besides, that's not even what's important. In this country, because of the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion, we cannot use religion as the basis of making a law that affects everyone, especially when it involves what rights people have.
And you say that men/women cannot love men/women in same traditional way that men/women can love women/men. I think you're forgetting that it is also tradition for traditions to change over time. Fifty years ago, it was traditional for people to only marry other people of the same race. Is it the same now? No.
But race didnt infring on religious grounds. Thats why I spent 5 pages, 4 months ago, with Advocate saying that gays should have a right to a court ordered union, and the rights for such a union should be changed to suit their needs. Instead we have this dumb system where one church will allow gays to be married and another will deny it. If the church denies the wedding, they are often sued on the grounds of denying human rights, under the code of discrimination.
But race didnt infring on religious grounds. Thats why I spent 5 pages, 4 months ago, with Advocate saying that gays should have a right to a court ordered union, and the rights for such a union should be changed to suit their needs. Instead we have this dumb system where one church will allow gays to be married and another will deny it. If the church denies the wedding, they are often sued on the grounds of denying human rights, under the code of discrimination.
Which means that you can't use religion to deny someone the right to marry, which is what I said from the beginning.
However, ruling in favour of gays instead of the church infringes on the churches civil rights. Therefore, its not that you cant use it, its that the court is in favour of individual rights.
However, ruling in favour of gays instead of the church infringes on the churches civil rights. Therefore, its not that you cant use it, its that the court is in favour of individual rights.
People have no right to use their religious views to make laws that affect everyone. A church's civil rights are not affected by the individual rights of the people in this country because everyone does not belong to the same religion, nor do they have the same views. Just because something that is viewed as being wrong according to someone's religion is legal does not mean that the people apart of that church have to partake in those actions. A church's rights, therefore, are not being violated.
Look at it this way, if in the catholic religion, the homosexual lifestyle is frowned apon, then that is a reason for not wanting to marry a homosexual couple. That is the churches freedom of speech and belief. which is a human right. It is also a human right for people to decide who they jump into bed with. For a homosexual couple to be married in a church, when the church does not want to marry the couple, the couple is infringing on the churches human rights. Now when they go to court, its basically human right vs human right, and the courts often choose the gay couples rights, as the couple is seen as individuals while the chuch is more like an organization. In reality, the court is infringing apon the churches civil rights now.
Now to break this all down, if a Christian gay couple wants to get married, but the Christian religion does not support homosexuality, the church has every right to say "no" to the marriage. That is why a court appoint civil union is the best options for gay couple. The law has nothing against homosexuality while religion does.
Look at it this way, if in the catholic religion, the homosexual lifestyle is frowned apon, then that is a reason for not wanting to marry a homosexual couple. That is the churches freedom of speech and belief. which is a human right. It is also a human right for people to decide who they jump into bed with. For a homosexual couple to be married in a church, when the church does not want to marry the couple, the couple is infringing on the churches human rights. Now when they go to court, its basically human right vs human right, and the courts often choose the gay couples rights, as the couple is seen as individuals while the chuch is more like an organization. In reality, the court is infringing apon the churches civil rights now.
Now to break this all down, if a Christian gay couple wants to get married, but the Christian religion does not support homosexuality, the church has every right to say "no" to the marriage. That is why a court appoint civil union is the best options for gay couple. The law has nothing against homosexuality while religion does.
I guess we weren't on the same page. I agree with your point about being married in the church, but what I was talking about was the actual state laws that they are trying to pass to prevent gay marriage anywhere in the state.
Look at it this way, if in the catholic religion, the homosexual lifestyle is frowned apon, then that is a reason for not wanting to marry a homosexual couple. That is the churches freedom of speech and belief. which is a human right. It is also a human right for people to decide who they jump into bed with. For a homosexual couple to be married in a church, when the church does not want to marry the couple, the couple is infringing on the churches human rights. Now when they go to court, its basically human right vs human right, and the courts often choose the gay couples rights, as the couple is seen as individuals while the chuch is more like an organization. In reality, the court is infringing apon the churches civil rights now.
Now to break this all down, if a Christian gay couple wants to get married, but the Christian religion does not support homosexuality, the church has every right to say "no" to the marriage. That is why a court appoint civil union is the best options for gay couple. The law has nothing against homosexuality while religion does.
nexus, we have talked about this.
let me lay this out very clearly. When Canada legalized gay marriage, churches had 100% the right to decide to NOT marry gays. Therefore, the legalization will not force the Catholic church to marry.
Where it supports freedom of religion is churches who want to marry gays will now be allowed to.
Therefore, the old law did not allow freedom of religion, where the new one provides more freedom of religion.
So, by NOT allowing gay marriage, you are imposing on the churches civil rights.
But race didnt infring on religious grounds. Thats why I spent 5 pages, 4 months ago, with Advocate saying that gays should have a right to a court ordered union, and the rights for such a union should be changed to suit their needs. Instead we have this dumb system where one church will allow gays to be married and another will deny it. If the church denies the wedding, they are often sued on the grounds of denying human rights, under the code of discrimination.
This is untrue. Canada is very careful on the human rights issue and had no problem with this. Churches have always been able to deny certain marriages.
This is why many churches in Canada still do not perform gay marriages.
and even if that were true, which it is not, why would the Catholic church has more value over laws than the United church? Tell me why Catholics should have more political power?
Linear Mode
