Gay Marriage: Great for Gays. Bad for Priests

[The Link]

WARNING: Before you respond, please do not start ranting saying that gays are gross, should change their ways, religion is whack or any other nonessential blusters. This topic is for the purpose of whether it is right for priests to be charged with disobeying the law for opposing to wed a gay couple despite their beliefs. Note, I do not want religious rants either. I want clear, respectful opinions from anyone (whether you're religious, whether you're gay/straight or both or just want to share a piece of intelligence with the group). A yes or no will not suffice me. XD Please state your reasons why you say no or yes.

Now, let's begin.

I found out the great news that Iowa (now among the four states) allowed gay-marriage to be legal. I was very excited about this because I am a lesbian in a relationship with a wonderful woman. I have been in this relationship for a while and am open about my sexuality (except to my family who are religious and believe that homosexuality is a sin. Note: Do not bash my family for I am very protective of them and love them to death).

However, I am not religious. You could call me the bad apple. I believe in the bible, believe in Jesus Christ and God but I do not believe that God ostracizes homosexuality and I do not follow religion as part of my daily life. I just simply believe in it to some extent.

Of course, it is written in the bible that homosexuality is a sin against God but I believe that the men who wrote that bible were straight as a stick and therefore, believed on themselves that homosexuality was a sin. I do not believe that is abominable towards God because He is equally allowed to love (both sexes included) so why aren't we? Back then, times were strict and rules were enforced (mostly with the death penalty). Times have changed drastically. Back then, in the beginning, incest was allowed and was not considered a sin towards God (according to the apostles and priests) and now in our day in age, it is considered a sin. That's just an example. The same thing goes for homosexuality.

However, many religious priests and believers do not see this. They believe that homosexuality is a sin and they should not accept it (NOT condemn or destroy, just not accept it in contrast to their beliefs). Does that make sense?

When I heard on the news that Iowa became the fourth state (excluding California) that allows gay marriage, I was thrilled.

But I read some quotes from a preacher saying, if gay marriage will be made into law, it would be possible for him (this preacher) to be thrown in jail simply because he stood on his beliefs and refused to marry two gay people.

My question is this: Do you believe this is right (for the priests, not for gay people).

To be honest, I think it's unfair. I mean, we, as homosexuals, fight so hard to have equal right that it is costing the rights of others. I think that makes us just as bad as those who forbid gays from being married.

It's just as unfair as this example.

A veterinarian refuses to perform euthanasia on a healthy animal yet the owner requests it to be done. That veterinarian can lose his license simply because he chose to follow his beliefs and it came with a price.

Another example:

A doctor refuses to perform abortion because he doesn't believe it is right. He loses his license.

Is this right?

I'm just using those as examples for the priest. Someone must lose their freedom for the freedom of others.. And one by one, no one will have freedom.

That's my thoughts. Please share. ^^

[Mariomasher]

I'm against it. I mean, I'm happy for gays but those who aren't gay, such as me, sit down, look at their ring and think ,"This doesnt mean anything to me anymore..." Now, I won't go around yelling "NO GAY MARRIAGES!!" but my opinion is no.

[ready2brawl]

My problem is this:

We're supposed to separate our church and state, right? Legally, the government shouldn't be able to tell the church what to allow or what not to allow. This also goes in the opposite direction: if a pastor wants to allow gay marriage, then he should be able to perform a ceremony.

[Angel]

Here is the full opinion of the crazy one known as Angel.

I am actually AGAINST it. OMG! But hold on a second, you might be thinking.. Angel, your probably the biggest homosexual on the earth. Your right now technically in a gay male relationship, and your going to be in the future in a lesbian relationship.

But it follows down as this. It's a WORD.

It's a stupid word, and I don't know why we are fighting for it, to be perfectly honest. The only actually point of being legally married is the benefits it gives.. and if we could get that and it be called a "civil union" then I don't see how we should whine about not having a word. I know the counter argument is: "Then why should they care about a word?"

Because marriage was created by the church. I'm going to be honest, if you created something.. why should people get to mess around with how you intended it to be? It's mean and selfish, but they made it to just be a man and a woman. That's the way it should be. To be honest, under that definition, it IS different. It's not the same thing. In that most basic definition:

Male/female does not equal female/female or male/male.

Consider for a moment different flavors of Doritio's chips. They all are amazing, they all fill you up and are delciious with sandwiches, but.. they are different. It's not a bad thing, it's just a different thing. I don't see why people should feel ashamed or try to ignore that simple fact. It's not about being less, it's about not being the same.

I mean, if we have a different word, it gives us all the benefits that a married couple would have, and we can go out and have our own pretty little ceremony, then I'm alright with that. I wish everyone else would be too.. there are plenty of things.. like safe work conditions, hate crimes, doctor negligence, and other things that are much more important to fight for.

Note that I'm Agnostic, so I am not a religious person.

[Big Boss]

Apr 27, 2009 21:12:36 GMT -5 Angel said:

Here is the full opinion of the crazy one known as Angel.

I am actually AGAINST it. OMG! But hold on a second, you might be thinking.. Angel, your probably the biggest homosexual on the earth. Your right now technically in a gay male relationship, and your going to be in the future in a lesbian relationship.

But it follows down as this. It's a WORD.

It's a stupid word, and I don't know why we are fighting for it, to be perfectly honest. The only actually point of being legally married is the benefits it gives.. and if we could get that and it be called a "civil union" then I don't see how we should whine about not having a word. I know the counter argument is: "Then why should they care about a word?"

Because marriage was created by the church. I'm going to be honest, if you created something.. why should people get to mess around with how you intended it to be? It's mean and selfish, but they made it to just be a man and a woman. That's the way it should be. To be honest, under that definition, it IS different. It's not the same thing. In that most basic definition:

Male/female does not equal female/female or male/male.

Consider for a moment different flavors of Doritio's chips. They all are amazing, they all fill you up and are delciious with sandwiches, but.. they are different. It's not a bad thing, it's just a different thing. I don't see why people should feel ashamed or try to ignore that simple fact. It's not about being less, it's about not being the same.

I mean, if we have a different word, it gives us all the benefits that a married couple would have, and we can go out and have our own pretty little ceremony, then I'm alright with that. I wish everyone else would be too.. there are plenty of things.. like safe work conditions, hate crimes, doctor negligence, and other things that are much more important to fight for.

Note that I'm Agnostic, so I am not a religious person.

wtf

[The Link]

It's not just a word: it's the rights. Here's what gays get as benefits if marriage is allowed. These are the economic benefits that a gay couple and a heterosexual will receive once marriage is legalized. After reading this, you should realize it's not just a word. You can call it "Fluff", marriage, or union. It's what is behind that word that people are fighting for.

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

[Ghost]

Apr 27, 2009 21:08:50 GMT -5 @ready2brawl said:

My problem is this:

We're supposed to separate our church and state, right? Legally, the government shouldn't be able to tell the church what to allow or what not to allow. This also goes in the opposite direction: if a pastor wants to allow gay marriage, then he should be able to perform a ceremony.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

[The Link]

*sigh* please post answers pertaining to the topic and your evidential answer that supports why you posted this answer. It's really important. I'd like opinions and supported claims rather than just.. eh.. Thank you. ^^

[Dobs]

Apr 27, 2009 21:24:36 GMT -5 Ghost said:

Apr 27, 2009 21:08:50 GMT -5 @ready2brawl said:

My problem is this:

We're supposed to separate our church and state, right? Legally, the government shouldn't be able to tell the church what to allow or what not to allow. This also goes in the opposite direction: if a pastor wants to allow gay marriage, then he should be able to perform a ceremony.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

THIS.

Not having read anything else other than that point of win, i shall state my opinion on the matter shortly.

I'm for gay marriage in that i'm against being against it. If that makes any sense at all.

I have absolutely know problem with Gay people. The fact that they can't get married gives them less rights than straight people which is wrong. Since the government shouldn't be involved in religious matters, why should it matter if if isn't religiously right?

Not allowing them to get married restricts their rights, which is wrong. The Government can fix that.

If God doesn't like it, he can take it up with the gays in the afterlife.

EDIT:
An anti-gay marriage ad i saw on the Colbert Report the other day that made me lol. A lot. After i was done laughing, i realized that i was angry with the ignorance of our nation... pity.



EDIT x2: Sorry for being off topic, i'm going to read the rest of the post now instead of just ranting about mah gay pplz...

[Dobs]

I'm double posting.
Ban Me.

As for what the link was actually TALKING about, i agree with her. If a PRIEST believes that it is against HIS faith to marry a gay couple, then he doesn't need to. The gay couple can simply get married by a judge, or captain, or whoever else can marry people. The priest isn't denying them their rights, and therefore, shouldn't be persecuted for doing so.

[The Link]

I agree. Now I don't know if priests will lose their certification YET but you see how a vet. loses his license if he choses to not euthanize a healthy animal but it's a start. But not just a priest, what about the judge or captain or whoever who decides NOT to marry the gay couple because of religious beliefs, chances are, they end up with some sort of penalty.

[Dobs]

Well, a priest's JOB is to spread faith and his beliefs to those who will listen. If he disagrees with the fact that two men are being married, then he shouldn't be obligated to do so, because his job is to follow the alleged word of God, which apparently hates gay people.

The judge/captain/vet's job has nothing to do with their own religious views, and therefore should not be effected by them. A judge/captain has no place to deny a gay couple their rights, for it is a religious matter, and they are not religious officials. A vet has no place to deny euthinasia because they aren't moral beings, they are doctors; they have to do what their patients request.

[rebirth]

Oh my is it little late to post in this? Well IMMA still going to post XD

Anyways, I'm for gay marriage because allowing The Gay Community to get married allows to get tons of benefits, rights, etc. etc.

Now on to the topic on hand, I'm a lil' ton whether not the priest should of been thrown in jail or not. Actually I don't think it's right because if he was standing for his belief just like The Gay Community fought for the right to get married.

Now on the other hand, I know there is religious schools around the United States that give kids who are homosexual a warning to change their "bad habits" and if they don't then they get kicked out. Now what does this have to do with the Priest situation? Well, I relate these stories because they have to religious belief and what not.

Of course what the schools are doing is way worse than the Priest simply saying he doesn't believe in gay marriage. But still...

[Sharpay]

I am neutral. I think it is the priest's decision and not the government's. With all of the homosexuals not being treated fairly, the government should remember that we all are equal and we all should be treated equally.

[Ejak]

TLDR
ok listen the whole gay marrige thing is so f**k**g stupid ok staight people dont want 2 men or 2 women to get married and gays want it. ok its a straight tradition not a gay tradition. marridge is for A Man and a Woman in love to come togethet and MAKE A BABY and not 2 men or 2 women, im not gay bashing its not the same thing who says it they cant make new tradition or something. for real im sorry. and f**k**g straight people make a big deal over something so stupid its f**k**g rediculis. and r they to say what person can do in thier own lifes, both sides are wrong about this whole thing. really am i the only one who thinks this is stupid?