You seem to be under the impression that marriage is a Christian creation, when it most definitely is not. Take China, for example. It is the oldest continuing civilization in the world, and it had marriage long before it even know of the existence of Christianity or Judaism. Then there's Japan. Japan is definitely not a Christian nation - less than 1% of its population is Christian, and yet they have marriage. They were closed off to the world for so long, yet they developed their own marriage customs. They have a wedding ceremony for their own religion, Shinto. It's beautiful, it's definitely a marriage, and it's most definitely not Christian. What I'm trying to say is that marriage can hold any spiritual and personal connotation that the individual wants it to, but in the end, it is still just a legal document. If marriage were solely a Christian ideal, it would not be possible for non-Christians to get married. As I'm sure you're aware, that's not the case.Danieltwotwenty wrote:I dont think anyone here is denying them the same legal rights as straight people, but the concept of "marriage" is a Christain/Judeo one meaning the union of a man and woman. Homosexuals in my country can have a civil union and will have all the same legal right's as myself and my wife, atheists also if they so choose can have a civil union. The act of a homosexual marriage directly mocks and riddicules what i believe and hurts me deeply, why does their right to use our ideal out weight my right to practice my religion freely. Why are they arguing about a word that hold's no meaning to them and directly affects people for who it does hold meaning, from a Christain standpoint i know the answer but if i was to look at it objectively they would have no claim on marriage and should settle for a civil union or call it somthing completely different.Jonouchi Katsuya wrote:Gay men and women are fighting for legal recognition for marriage NOT religious recognition. The reason why it is important to correctly identify this is because Churches CAN marry anyone they want with no legal confirmation (which is why some marry dogs to each other it is kind strange!). It is just a ceremony. Not legally binding in it of itself. Churches can keep gay marriage out of the church as much as they want. Nothing says you must use someone religious for it to be marriage (though Christian weddings are pretty!).
However, when we speak of the legal contract of marriage, it would be against other laws we currently have on file in the United States to not allow two people to enter into a consensual contract. The constitution protects people from experiencing bias due to race, religion, sex, etc. Notice the word "sex". And I mean that as gender.
Now what prevents people from marrying animals? Well animals can't give consent. Children? Nope. They can't give consent so why are you worrying about this?
What about multiple people? Well, marriage is a contract between two people. (though we are assuming these are consenting adults... I guess why not? it is in the bible and smiled on by God even... sooooo)
So I really don't see the big deal. I am happily married to my husband and I don't see how someone else getting married and being happy would make my marriage suck or something.
Your Friend in Christ
I would like to ask you how exactly homosexual marriage threatens your right or ability to practice your religion freely. If someone else's relationship, the relationship of two people completely unrelated you, somehow keeps you from worshiping God, I'd like to know how. In my country, the United States, Civil Unions do not necessarily hold all the same rights as a marriage. A marriage is a federally recognized document while a civil union is recognized only by certain states, often only the state in which it is administered. That hardly seems fair and is most definitely impeding on the couple's civil rights.
If you want to take the word "marriage" out of it, then no marriage, regardless of who it is between, should be legally recognized. It should exist in the eyes of the Church only. If the couple wants the legal benefits, then that couple must get a civil union in addition to their Church-sanctioned marriage. Does that sound better? I would be behind. That way, all people are equal regardless of sexual orientation, religion, or whatever else.