Gay marriage/civil unions (with a poll this time)

[darkante]

I have nothing against gay marriage. As long they are in love and there for each other at all times, whom am i to judge.

My faith is in Jesus, but i´m open minded.

[goldwing]

To b honest its up to them if they feel its right then so be it. If someone feels its wrong so b it. We live in a free country lets treat it like one.

[Peejay]

I have nothing against gay marriage. As long they are in love and there for each other at all times, whom am i to judge.

My faith is in Jesus, but i´m open minded.

Your faith can be in Jesus, just as long as you're not in the Church. People have weird, antiquated views on that whole association anyways. I don't understand the "WORSHIP HERE OR IT DOESN'T COUNT" garbage. Jesus is always written up to be a kind and generous soul, too, so by that choice of actions I think you'd be more in the right. Isn't that what it's all about? Acceptance?

Though admittedly I think discrimination IS okay because the people discriminating are about as smart as a roadkill fungiform.

[GCoffee]

Your faith can be in Jesus, just as long as you're not in the Church. People have weird, antiquated views on that whole association anyways. I don't understand the "WORSHIP HERE OR IT DOESN'T COUNT" garbage. Jesus is always written up to be a kind and generous soul, too, so by that choice of actions I think you'd be more in the right. Isn't that what it's all about? Acceptance?

Though admittedly I think discrimination IS okay because the people discriminating are about as smart as a roadkill fungiform.

You just discriminated the church and all of the people being part of it.

..?


On-Topic, I have nothing whatsoever against gay marriage. People should be able to do what makes them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, which is the case in this instance. When it comes to adoption and gay couples I used to feel unsure about my opinion, simply because I am not able to tell how well the lack of either gender would work out for the child. I am aware that a gay couple can make for parents equally good as hetero couples, but the psyche of a human works in mysterious ways, and I figured something could - and I mean could - end up missing. But of course a gay couple can grow a happy child, so those are concerns I think to be negligible in the long term.

[Leviathan]

When it comes to adoption and gay couples I used to feel unsure about my opinion, simply because I am not able to tell how well the lack of either gender would work out for the child.

Oh, is this the 1950's? It has no bearing whatsoever. The quality of the parenting is what matters. You can have scumbag dad and mom with both genders (this is a social construct) being present and that will not make them any more or less capable than gay parents.

I am aware that a gay couple can make for parents equally good as hetero couples, but the psyche of a human works in mysterious ways, and I figured something could - and I mean could - end up missing. But of course a gay couple can grow a happy child, so those are concerns I think to be negligible in the long term.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/te...youtube-48829/

'The July 2006 AAP study continues, "Children born to and raised by lesbian couples seem to develop in ways that are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual parents."'

And another article.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...der21_ST_N.htm

[Peejay]

You just discriminated the church and all of the people being part of it.

..?

Faith is one thing. But I told a father to go eat several phalluses after saying I should condemn a friend for being gay, going against the teachings of, well, a lot of religions, and it's more than uncommon. I don't mind the faith, but putting people together in a faith-based organization just seems like a bad idea because of things like that.

I could also mention the Crusades, too, I suppose.

[HUcast Omega]

I am in full support of gay marriage and all rights. I'm an open minded agnostic, and as such no person, whatever there choice in a partner, should be condemned or called names for how they feel towards eachother. Doing so makes one ignorant, and marriage should ALWAYS be about love, not religion. No one has to agree with my views, but I'm entitled to my opinion.

[HUcast_Josh]

I don't care if someone is gay, so stop your bitchin gay haters and leave them be

[Reksanden]

I'll say it. Yes, I'm gay myself. But I've accepted people trying to butt into my business, because that's life. Life isn't inherintly fair, only where you make it. If others only knew that being what I am doesn't make me any less of a person, then there's be no problems.

[Randomness]

I stand for traditional marriage. It is a sacred bond reserved solely for a man and woman's parents; a tool to be used as a means to secure business contracts, broker peace between families, and the raising or lowering family social status within an outdated and defunct caste system. Those who wish to marry for petty selfish reasons such as "love", and carry out clandestine ceremonies shall be severely punished, to wit, by excommunication followed by exile or execution.

(btw, where exactly are we drawing the line here? Are we going all the way back to traditional polygamy... in which case, go Mormons I guess. Or are we standing up for traditional marriage by banning miscegenation? I kind of picked a middle point between the two, but if you're not going to ban interracial marriage, then the current "traditional marriage" is only like 40 or 50 years old, which makes it kind of hard to argue for it's sanctity and reverence. Or hey, here's an idea... why don't we allow everyone to get married to whomever they wish regardless of race or sexuality, and we draw the line at preserving the "sanctity" of marriage at not cheating on your fucking wives and husbands! Or is that too much to ask? Are just not ready yet to stop fucking whoever we want, and then rather than stand behind the idea of a sanctified marriage we just pay lip service to it by choosing an arbitrary class of people to say "no, this is sacred, you can't have this" to?)

Seriously though, I have no problems with gay marriage or same-sex couples adopting children. As private organizations, I don't think Churches should be required to recognize or marry gay couples against their doctrinal teachings (and I don't know of anyone who seriously advocates that they should), but by the same token, the Church should have no authority or weight in the discussion over secular state-sanctioned marriage ceremonies. Live and let love.

Nice turn of phrase.

Personally, I wonder how much howling would occur if someone proposed a bill that replaced all instances of "marriage" with "civil union" in the law. Of course, as you noted, marriage has nothing to do with the Christian church originally, so the religious objections should just be ignored anyways - religion's touch on policy should be as limited as possible.