<p>Are you opposed to same-sex marriage but in favor of same sex civil union? Against both? Please explain</p>
<p>I would like to hear UB-Vinny's opinion (and rationale) in particular. Thanks.</p>
<p>For everything, all the way.
Marriage isn't about procreation anymore. There are plenty of people; our population is not in jeopardy.<br>
Homosexual couples aren't hurting you.
Let them be happy.</p>
<p>gay = happy ahahaha</p>
<p>Very good question!</p>
<p>I'm totally in favor of civil union. It would remove the religious aspect and therefore the debate. Let people have their own religious ceremony, if desired, but have that be separate from the legal one.</p>
<p>I agree with Mollypockets. With so many horrific things to be concerned about these days, why get up in arms about marital rights for people who love one another? Worry instead about how we're going to get out of this nightmare in Iraq, or how to solve world famine, or protecting the world's fragile environment, or dealing with AIDS and other potential epidemic diseases, etc., etc. Whether the two guys or gals down the block love each other and want a religious or civil ceremony to legalize their committment just doesn't seem like something we should be fretting about. Live and let live.</p>
<p>If they would let straight couples civil union, where guys wouldn't have to pay alimony or child support after the thing went belly up, this could be a hugely popular option.</p>
<p>I think a big fear of the conservatives is that they will be forced to open their churches to gay wedding ceremonies or be sued. If they could be reassured that they don't have to unwillingly participate in the process, that might ease some of the resentment and fears of gay marriage. </p>
<p>While I support gay marriage, I think civil unions and a hell of a party afterwards is fine. If the goal is to be married and gain those rights of marriage, it shouldn't be forced upon an unwilling church to perform the ceremony.</p>
<p>It would be better for all involved to use the churches that do have an honest "open door" policy, rather than force one that doesn't.</p>
<p>I don't have much of a problem with stricly legal same-sex civil unions, where gay couples are essentially common-law spouses with the same legal benefits as genuine married couples. </p>
<p>My anti-gay marriage position is mainly to protect religious freedoms. This is a very serious issue. Wherever gay marriage has been enacted, churches have either directly or indirectly been pressured to compromise their faith. That is something that I will never stand for, and neither should any of you.</p>
<p>If same-sex marriage were legalized, churches won't necessarily be forced to grant it. However, they might feel pressured to do so (although it's up to them to resist) and therefore compromise their beliefs in the process. I don't feel particularly strongly about the fight over "marriage," probably because I don't really understand the need for it at this point. I'm also not religious, so I don't see the importance of having my relationship "blessed" by a church. However, I do know some gay people who want to get married badly. Partly because I care about their strong desire to have their relationship recognized as legitimate and sacred but mostly because of the overwhelmingly convincing argument for gay marriage, I am in favor of gay marriage. Personally, I think I would be satisfied with a civil union (as long as I get the same exact benefits as a "marriage"), but my mind could change in the future.</p>
<p>"If same-sex marriage were legalized, churches won't necessarily be forced to grant it. "</p>
<p>But could they be tied up in legal challenges by rejecting it? Wouldn't that be subject to discrimination issues? I'm not against gay marriage, but in the same sense there has to be some reassurance to the groups that don't want it done in their church, that they will not have to defend that choice in court. </p>
<p>If it's truly about getting married, anywhere is fine. If it's about in "yourface" then I would side with those who oppose. If I support letting one "side" be on this issue, I support letting the other side "be" as well. A gay marriage should not be about punishing those who don't support it. It should be about the union between two people surrounded by those who support it.</p>
<p>I guess it all comes down to how you define marriage. </p>
<p>I am heterosexual, and I've been married for 18 years, but without the blessing of any religious institution. Essentially, I have a civil union, but I didn't have to engage a lawyer or enter into contracts to gain the privileges (and pitfalls) of a married citizen. This is what I favor for gays who wish to marry. There are Christian churches that will sanctify homosexual unions (UU, UCC churches, more liberal Episcopalian parishes); I believe a conservative Jewish denomination just voted to support gay marriage, as well. If you are gay, and you want to marry, and you belong to a religious organization that will sanctify that union, then good on ya. </p>
<p>Part of the brilliance of the separation of church and state (which I support as a Christian and an American) is that no, churches would not have to be tied up in court defending their right to not bless a homosexual union. The state could pass a law saying they would legalize gay marriage, but that would not give them the power to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. </p>
<p>That wouldn't necessarily stop gay couples and their supporters from pressuring churches to accept them and perform ceremonies for them, but it wouldn't be required of those churches, and I have faith that those churches that are welcoming and affirming will gain most of those gay couples, while those that are traditional and unchanging will remain so, and each branch will have it's adherents. No one's religious freedom will need to be denied. Those denominations that support gay marriage can always split off, as seems to be happening with the Episcopalian church, and I guess we'll find out in death whether Jesus' message of love applies to all or we (Christian supporters of gay marriage) are doomed for disobeying a few lines in Leviticus.</p>
<p>I agree that Americans have little to worry about (he said optimistically) regarding churches being persecuted if gay marriage is enacted, because of the Separation of Church and State. But in my country, Canada, and across Europe, there are no such Separation laws -- at least not nearly as clearly and firmly defined as in the American Constitution. Religious people in Canada and in European nations do not have the kind of protection against the state that American religious people have been blessed with by the Founding Fathers.</p>
<p>"If same-sex marriage were legalized, churches won't necessarily be forced to grant it."</p>
<p>See, this is the attitude among gay marriage adherents that troubles me. They don't seem to particularly care all that much if churches are forced to go against their faith or are in any other way persecuted. In my view, if you are a true believer in America's Separation of Church and State laws, there is nothing to be lukewarm about regarding the possibility of religious people being persecuted by the state. You should be passionately against any possibility of that happening, 100%. The Separation of Church and State isn't worth the paper it is written on if we allow this to happen to churches and their faithful.</p>
<p>Fides - I used that phrasing not out of a lack of concern, but because in the U.S. (and I'm sorry to be so U.S.-centric) laws vary from state to state. In some states where people have opposed the strong wall between state and religion, the blurring of the line may result in those kinds of lawsuits. (Ironically, those states are the ones where a more fundamentalist brand of Christianity is the favored religious belief.)</p>
<p>To veer slightly off topic: I always find it interesting that the lawsuits regarding religious displays on government owned property, or expression of religion in schools, always seem to come from those more conservative states. I live in a pretty liberal state, and my town hall is on the same lot as a Congregational Church, and the creche is directly in front of the town hall, but no one makes a fuss over it. My kids both sing religious songs in public school, and no one makes a fuss over it. I suspect this is because no one who practices a minority religion, or doesn't practice religion at all, ever feels excluded or that they are being coerced to practice Christianity. That may not be the case in the more fundamentalist areas of the country.</p>
<p>What troubles me about certain gay marriage opponents is that they don't give churches the right to choose to perform same-sex marriage, thus infringing on the religious freedom of churchmembers who support it but legally cannot carry it out.</p>
<p>Oh yea, this statement: "If same-sex marriage were legalized, churches won't necessarily be forced to grant it." should be "Churches will not be mandated to grant same-sex marriage." I certainly support the religious freedom of churches who do not believe in it as well. I detract the first statement and truly did not mean it. The double effect of "necessarily" and "forced" changed the meaning of the sentence.</p>
<p>I'm opposed to gays getting divocorced. The only way to let them get divorced is to let them get married, so therefore don't let them get married. ;)</p>
<p>"What troubles me about certain gay marriage opponents is that they don't give churches the right to choose to perform same-sex marriage, thus infringing on the religious freedom of churchmembers who support it but legally cannot carry it out."</p>
<p>The way I see it, those Protestant Christian and Jewish denominations that are performing homosexual marriages or are willing to perform them are for the most part buckling under the pressures of secular culture to change; their decision on this matter is certainly not coming from any genuine theological insight or discovery. They simply don't have the courage to stand their religious ground, in the face of endless accusations of "intolerance," "bigotry," and "backwardness" from secular culture. Basically, they're afraid. They think that by feeding the monster, it will be satisfied and want to become friends. Perhaps it will... for a little while.</p>
<p>It is a sad state of affairs. The holy martyrs of the Church and of Jerusalem -- true Christians and Jews who willingly accepted horrific deaths rather than give an inch on things far less important than gay marriage -- are likely rolling in their graves.</p>
<p>I'm anti gay marriage simply because I don't like the arguments that gays use, because they could be used to push the boundary further and further. They say they are "born" attracted to the same sex(I think it is environmental factors) thus they should have the same legal priveleges as hetero's. If you accept this argument, then what do you say to the people who were "born" pedophiles and want to marry/screw prepubescent( i dont care about spelling) girls/boys? What do you say to those that were "born" loving goats and want the same legal priveleges?</p>
<p>The way I see it though, I win either way. If I am right, then I am right. If I am wrong, and gays actually are born gay, then the "gay" gene will in the long run eventually become extinct since it lowers the probability of them reproducing.</p>
<p>"then what do you say to the people who were "born" pedophiles and want to marry/screw prepubescent( i dont care about spelling) girls/boys? What do you say to those that were "born" loving goats and want the same legal priveleges?"</p>
<p>That's not a good analogy. Gay sex between 2 consenting adults has no victims. Pedophilia, on the other hand, has victims. That is the difference.</p>
<p>(I don't think there are too many people who claim to love goats...but if there are any, well, goats don't have any more status than cows, and people eat cows, so....so....not an issue.)</p>
<p>I'm opposed to gay marriage. But what they do in the privacy of their own homes is not my business. They can do whatever they want as long as they are not married.</p>