Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

Actually I was quite clear. No non christian can instruct me on any matter pertaining to Christianity, particularly in regard to Christian conduct and piety. I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you.

 

oh, and what does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

 

Okay.

You might believe that, but it really isn't true.

No, not really... though I do realize it is what you believe.

 

I think it explains why someone could create a thread with this topic AND think as they do as expressed in the OP.

If someone believes that no one but those 'like' them could instruct them... they are probably going to miss-out on quite a lot in life.

 

Thanks for your opinion. What does this have to do with gay marriage?

 

Since gays do not participate in culture and clearly have never come into contact with any marriage and realized it's significance in culture.

The fact of the matter is that the church and state are seperate. So no, your church does not let them get married there but yes, the goverment should and will allow them to be married in the eyes of the state. Since gays are people (as far as all but the most extreme are concerned) they were created equal and deserve to be treated as equal. Our nation has gone through these same problems with women, african americans, and other "inferior humans" for years, this one will not end any differently, equality.

 

..........wtf, why are you saying I'm not a christian?

 

It has to do with perspectives and approaches to the topic itself. Even so, I'm only shooting for one thing: That homosexual couples be allowed to marry legally; receiving the same rights/benefits as heterosexual couples.

 

I thought that was what he/she was saying. But I'll wait for the answer.

 

no it is not a matter of equality, for it is the matter of common sense, gays may be equal but until they debase others through an act of breaking common sense.

 

​

 

Hey guys, we have religious freedom in this country. So what about the churches that do allow gay marriage? Don't they have the religious freedom to do so if they so please? Or is that only a privilege which churches that agree with you enjoy?

 

burn them down.

 

It's gonna suck for you once the Feds arrest you and you tell them that.

 

Is that....a joke?

 

SpaceCricket79, normally I tend to agree with a lot of your views, but this one, I can't agree, that Marriage is a Hetero's only club. As far as their experience...What is the difference? They grow up with a married couple, as do Heterosexuals, so really their experiences are based on the same things, just with a difference in gender. That would be like saying that a Black man cannot marry a White girl. Why?

I would also like to point out that Marriage is not the same as it used to be...there is a 90% divorce rate, so really, what difference does it make? These are just thoughts...

 

it was created as a heteros-only institution; and even in the Ancient Rome where homosexualism was common, they hadn't gone as pervert as to suggest that a man can marry a man.

so what???

 

Welcome to 2012.

 

This is the worst argument ever for same sex marriage. But it is very indicative of where we are as a culture today. Of the attitude that permeates our society; if something is broken, just throw it away - don't bother trying to fix it.

 

you mean the West is soon to end up like the Rome Empire?

 

non se·qui·tur noun \ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
Definition of NON SEQUITUR

1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting
from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition
of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related
to anything previously said​

 

You're right, because men were treated as equals that could not be owned. Only women could be owned, and thus traded as property in arranged marriages.

This perverted notion of treating women as property, second-class citizens bought and sold has only recently been abandoned. Marriage is a fundamentally different institution from what it once was, and still is in many parts of the world.

 

correct me if im wrong but in the Ancient Rome they traded men as well as women and owned them to the point of telling them whom to marry and whom not and so on... but however perverted the Romans were (in fact way more perverted than we are today) they didn't go as far as to allow homosexuals into the institution of marriage.

 

Why would a homosexual man want to be owned?

And yes, men and women were bought and sold as slaves, themselves being even lower than women citizens. Regardless, this does not change the fact that e is a fundamentally different institution. it's like comparing a modern day business contract to a marriage license. The comparison is almost meaningless, and I don't think anyone in our modern society supports the full context of the ancient forms of marriage.

 

You made some good points above.