<p>This is what I do not get. People say they are not prejudiced and dont discriminate against gays. Then they say that being gay is wrong and they should never be allowed to get married because it goes against their “family values”. That sounds like discrimination to me…in fact it is nearly the definition. I understand that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but personally, I DO NOT CARE. As I have said, religion should not come into play when making amendments to the Constitution or making laws. Marriage may be a religious term, but people who are atheists, who are criminals, who did not wed in a church, are still considered “married”, why shouldn;t gays. I believe in a higher power, but I do not take the Bible literally or form my political beliefs based upon it nor will I ever. It is an excellent religious text, but it is out-of-date and it does not apply to modern society. Anyway, whether you like it or not, my gut says that soon enough gays will be able to marry throughout the United States. There will be another civil rights movement, and years from now, people will look back in disgust at the prejudiced and closemindedness that was so prevalent in our society.</p>
<p>Why do I who have nothing against homosexuals have to be pro-gay marriage. That is a bull***** thing to say too…this gay civil rights movement doesn’t compare to the suffering of African Americans, that is almost making light of it. They can get married, but they better not be getting married in a Catholic church IMO. They can take that up with the Vatican. Also I am not prejudiced and I don’t discriminate, I just want to abide by the word of my church, so I guess that makes me a bad person.<br>
Gay people getting married in a Catholic church does offend me, and I honestly don’t care what you say. They should not be getting married there. It undermines a holy sacrament, it makes light of a union between a man and a women. This is the definition of marriage:
“The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”
this is from Websters. They can get a civil union, but a Roman Catholic church is not the place for it.</p>
<p>well you see, willmingtonwave, I disagree with you. I think disallowing the right to wed to homosexuals is prejudiced, just like not letting blacks go to school with white children was prejudiced. Also, I never said that gays not being allowed to marry was equal to the suffering of African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement. However, it is still unjust AND prejudiced. I am sorry but I disagree with you. I do think gays should be allowed to marry (whether in a church or not). There are christian homosexuals, and i am sure it hurts them that they cannot marry in a house of God. they did not choose to be gay. And please, dont get so upset…this is a healthy debate.</p>
<p>willmingtonwave, no one is saying that gays should have the right to be married by the Catholic Church - just that they should have the right to be married legally - in the eyes of the law. The religious celebration that often comes with legal marriage is a separate and unrelated condition. The Catholic Church has the option of religiously marrying or not marrying whatever couple.</p>
<p>The great thing about this debate is the “tradition” business. It’s clear that homesexuality has a great tradition in the world - from many early organisms (recent discoveries include gay mushrooms, gay sperm-whales, and many othes) to early people (yes, including the Greeks.) So in any case, gay marriage would only finally allow for the acceptance of long-founded traditions.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the argument that “if gay marriage, why not polygamy/bestiality/pedophilia?” can be dealt with. Bestiality has to do with a human and an animal performing sexual acts. First, this doesn’t implicitly involve gay marriage - marriage without sex can exist. Second, an animal cannot consent to sex. Third, it is dangerous. The same business holds with pedophilia - someone is hurt by it. Polygamy is illegal since it frequently ends up with one of the partner’s rights being lost. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults - there are no such issues here.</p>
<p>Gay adoption is an entirely different issue. The right to adopt a child doesn’t immediately come with marriage - there are many married couples that cannot legally adopt. It’s a separate issue.</p>
<p>I don’t care about gay marriage unless it deals with in the Roman Catholic church, gays can go to a borough hall and knock themselves out with getting married. I don’t think not wanting to corrupt a holy bond between a man and woman justfies discrimination. They can get a legal marriage, I don’t really care if they do because it doesn’t concern me, its personal then, but when it is in my church it does concern me.</p>
<p>ok, so you “heterosexuals” can marry. now why can’t i? are you calling me perverse? well i thimnk you “heterosexuals” are perverse. b ut im still going to let you marry. now, can we reach a compromise?</p>
<p>You are absolutely right. It does not concern you. Gays should be allowed to marry. Disallowing gay marriage is an outright attack on human rights ( someone said this earlier). If homosexuality is against your morals, don’t look! It is not anyone;s business to tell gays “you can;t get married, because the Bible says so!”</p>
<p>City hall maybe? Borough is defined as “a part of a city, having authority over certain local matters.”</p>
<p>To summarize the sentiments of the posters…
Gay marriage in the Catholic (or another religious denomination) Church = Against.
Gay marriage in legal/civil government = Support.
Accurate?</p>
<p>Churches will always have the right to regulate the traditions within their halls. Despite this, many states in the US have spoken out against even civil unions for gay couples. This means that a partner in a 20-year long, monogamous, same-sex relationship may not make medical decisions for the other partner. He or she may not take possession of the body for burial should the partner die. Marriage is about more than children.</p>
<p>Just a thought about etymology. Churches have no claim to the word “marriage.” I’m sorry, but marriage simply means the union of two things into a single entity. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, no? I cannot understand those who distinguish between civil unions and marriages because of terminology. Marriage also predates Christianity. The government will never, ever force a church to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple.</p>
<p>Futhermore, the issue of innate sexuality is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage, especially as science has yet to prove or disprove theories about nature vs. nurture with regard to homosexuals. I understand the debate about whether or not gay issues fall under the realm of civil rights, but they most certainly qualify as human rights.</p>
<p>Finally, I wish people would stop arguing morals, as what is considered moral or immoral/amoral varies so drastically from person to person.</p>
<p>However, we should consider that we make the dictionaries - not the other way around. I place less consideration on a dictionary definition than on the Bible, and I suppose God knows that’s not a lot.</p>
<p>Your first definition of family is clearly outdated - modern times see frequent divorced families with step-siblings, single-parent families, children living with another family member instead of a parent, etc… Your second family definition only cites the mother and the father as an example, and since “related” hasn’t been defined, a gay couple would satisfy the definition.</p>
<p>In your first definition of marriage, it isn’t a stretch to update the first point by using the second. </p>
<p>“a combination of two or more elements”</p>
<p>Not complementing elements, not distinct elements, not different elements. A gay couple fits.</p>
<p>Yes, FountainSiren, marriage can be applied in your context, but I believe that the traditional interpretation of the word is too narrow. I still don’t understand why there is this distinction between marriage and union, as they are essentially synonymns.</p>
<p>A Long time ago imagine your source would have defined something such as…the world! Flat?</p>
<p>Or for certain sicknesses. Witch curses?</p>
<p>Those who use Christianity’s name to persecute homosexuals, would probably believed misfortunes to be the causes of witches.(salem witch trials)</p>
<p>Point is that because you found a simple subjective definition does not make it acurate. Honestly, who is to say what is correct and what is not, or who is to define what marriage is? You? Me? The dictionary? NO.</p>