Gay Marriage

Hey if gays want to get married thats fine with me. No civil unions, just give them full marriages. What makes them so different that they cant have the same rights? They are still human. :smilie4:

Sure the religious people want to preach their old ways originated by a man (who some claim never existed :blink:) thousands of years ago and then a book was written 70 to 130 years after his death based off someone elses interperitation and then distorted and modified several times throughout history. :blink: It's a classic case of the conservative religious folk trying their best to hinder progress. :frusty:

The religious people and repressed homosexuals are the only people I know of who would be against gay marriage. :ph34r: Otherwise theres no problem right?

I'm for,as long as children aren't involved :)

There are a number of ministers here that will bless a homosexual union. It's a religious service. Of course, this furthers the somewhat nasty business of creating a schism in the church, which is fairly divided already (other issues include the nature of Jesus Christ, and interpretation of the Bible).

This isn't the Roman Catholic Church, but the Anglican.

In any case, it certainly isn't fair to tar all "religious people" with the same brush.

:ninja:

Edit: Clarification.

A Unitarian church would marry gay couples without conflict. They are people who believe in a God, a God who is not specifically defined. They are more interested in finding "spirituality and harmony" than following a specific dogma and quibbling translations and meaning.

Unitarian Church

Quote:

---

The heart of our mission is to promote love, reason and freedom in religion, to foster lifelong spiritual growth and to act for social justice. We encourage seekers of all faiths, nationalities, races, genders, ages, abilities and sexual orientations to visit our congregation. We hope that you will find the spiritual home that you are seeking. Please browse the following pages to find out more about our church, its beliefs and its mission.

---

I am actually surprised a certain member here is not part of this church, it seems right up his alley.


So to say that "marraige" (a union blessed by God and recognized legally) cannot be granted to a same sex couples, is to assume a Christian bias. Why is the Unitarian Church not able to sanction these relations, to encompass both spiritual and legal aspects. Seems that the Christian church is trying to run a monopoly on who defines the rules. In the land of the free, which promises separation between the Church and State, something smells fishy here.

If Christians want, they can call their "marraiges", "Christian marraiges" to distinguish themselves from the sinners. ;)


PS: I am neither gay nor Unitarian.

GAY marriage is legal for some years now in The Netherlands and also a close familly member of me is gay...

I never understood all the fuss about it!

me is 100% supporting gay marriage

Hobbes

Absolutely, as I said in my post "Gay people getting married in a Church, that's up to the Church".

The point being that the state or society, or us should not try to impose our will on any Church. If they want to marry Gay people in their Church, that is up to them. If they do not, that is also up to them.

I would suppose that gay people would not want to be part of a Church which does not recognise their right to be gay. It wouldn't make any sense. How could someone be part of a Church which says their lifestyle is a sin. They would have to change their lifestyle, or leave the Church and join one that accepts them. That Church would possibly also allow them to marry, so no problem.

;) I am all for it.Rather be around a bunch of Gay Men that are Married then Single ones.

:P Not like they are ever interested anyways! :P

But that is not how it is playing out.

Christians seem to want to retain the use of the word "marriage" and some may concede the point of "civil union" to specifically define a legal relationship.

Gay people are not "Godless", but under the dogma of the Christian church are requisitely excluded. A Unitarian Church is based on God and Spirituality without such restrictions, so why is this even an issue? Any religion should be able to sanction a marriage, but the Christians are all up in arms about this.

Why would one follow a strictly Catholic dogma when a more open and equally moral alternative is available? I would favor bringing my children up as centrally spiritual, but understanding that the exact nature of God is undefinable and that we humans have created certain religions to help explain Him and to assist in living peacefully together. We may not agree on the details, but faith in a loving, compassionate, and caring God is all that matters.

I understood your points, and I think we are in full agreement, you just seem to adhere to a rather "Catholic" perspective, when the Unitarian way would disemburden you from feeling the heat of all those past indescretions done in the name of the Catholic church and having to explain over and over that the Bible is an allegory and not to be taken literally. The Unitarian way allows you to maintain a belief in God and a moral way in which to raise you children, without all the extra baggage.

I, unfortunately, don't buy this, but that is just me.

Hobbes

I agree that we agree :blink: , it is up to you to bring up your children in the way that you feel is right, it is nobody else's business and they have no right to interfere. Surely then it is also up to the Christians to make their own decisions. If they chose not to allow gay marriages in their Churches, based on their beliefs, then that is their choice. Why would they change their fundamental beliefs ? They would then no longer be Christians, by their own definition. They have no need to be "Unitarian" they are content to maintain their belief in God and his teachings, with the "extra baggage" as you describe it. I think we have ventured into a non-argument, we both accept that each others point of view is valid, taken within the context of our belief system. I think this is a good thing and shows us both to be open and accepting to the views of others, whilst maintaining our own positions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@18 February 2004 - 02:06
Hobbes

I agree that we agree  :blink: , it is up to you to bring up your children in the way that you feel is right, it is nobody else's business and they have no right to interfere. Surely then it is also up to the Christians to make their own decisions. If they chose not to allow gay marriages in their Churches, based on their beliefs, then that is their choice. Why would they change their fundamental beliefs ? They would then no longer be Christians, by their own definition. They have no need to be "Unitarian" they are content to maintain their belief in God and his teachings, with the "extra baggage" as you describe it. I think we have ventured into a non-argument, we both accept that each others point of view is valid, taken within the context of our belief system. I think this is a good thing and shows us both to be open and accepting to the views of others, whilst maintaining our own positions.

---

And we will leave it to Fugley to contemplate those positions and even his own.