Do You Support Gay Marriage?

No, they can't lay claim to it. They just originaly defined it. And like I said, if a gay couple wants to be married by a judge, or a ships captain, (which may go into that whole gay navy issue), that's perfectly fine by me. It just shouldn't be done with a religious ceremony.

I have had many male gay friends in my life time. We always knew what the other believed and yet it never was an issue in our friendship. I loved them like they were my brothers. As I had stated, my Chrisian beliefs are mine and do not push them on anyone else. My neice is gay. She grew up in a very strong Christian family and of course the family was very upset when she told us. However, I have NEVER imposed my beliefs on her. I am sure she knows what they are anyway, so why harp on her. Instead I show her the same love and respect that I always have. If she were to get married to another woman, would I agree? No. But is it my business? NO

Just because of my beliefs, I do not feel it is my right to tell anyone what to do. But if they ask me, I will express my opinion.

Well not talking naval ships captains here don't even want to open that can of worms.

And never said it had to be a religious ceamony but since churches don't have legal claim to the word marriage then gays should have a right to call it marriage if they wish.

Well said, Rose.

Same here. I have several gay friends, best friends in fact, and they've always known where I stand. Of course, I used to be a lot more conservative than I am now. He only asked me once what I thought of it. I told him the truth. I don't aprove. He got upset, but I told him that it doesn't change the way I feel about him, or the way I treat him, so there was never any issue again after that.

Well as I said your right to have and even share your views with those interested (opbviously threads like this make those responding interested ) but it's good to see you don't push your views onto others like you could with your Neice.

Thanks everyone..........whew!!!!!! So far I am surviving in here.

NO!!

Male and female have the purpose of pro-creating, gay couples can not do this! Nature defines this law not man!

I am not homophobic, many friends are gay and we have this discussion often. Love can be defined in many ways, but sex acts between 2 members of the same sex are in no way normal in my own opinion.

If one wants to commit to one partener of the same sex for a lifetime then fine but I do not think it can be called a mariage... unless the posibiliy exists of offspring. Live life as you see it , but do not make it law that all must accept it.

I never said any of yous is pushing their views, I just know too many that do. And that definitly put me off the whole religion thing.

But I disagree with you oldraven, the church did not originally define it.. If they did: how do Hindu's marry? Or Buddhists? Or others that are not originally christian?
marriage is the word that means entering/being in a lifelong bond. And that fact is not defined by Religion/God but by the actual fact that people live together and share life after having entered such a bond.

Miri, I realise you're close to the issue, but that doesn't warrant selctive reading. You're not hearing what I'm saying, your reading the words and getting your own version. Let's make this a bit clearer.

Marriage, in the legal sense, which is what we're talking about here today, was defined by the church in the time where the state was joined with the church. This is true in my country and in yours, or at least where you are now. I'm not saying the Christian church invented the joining of man and wife. But the term that is used in the legal system was penned by the church originaly.

In muslim countries, the law is still joined with their faith, and their laws with regard to same sex marriage is the same. A man and a woman. This is the way it was defined when religion had everything to do with the legal system. Now that it's not, in our countries, the word should be redefined.

Why does the word need to be redefined? Let the word rest within those religious institutions that coined it. Instead of redefining marriage, which will obviously create angst and oppostion, why not allow same-sex couples who enjoy lifelong bonds of love and commitment define their relationship using a different term? I do think that "Civil Union" would be more widely accepted than "marriage" to describe the relationship. The important thing is to ensure that these couples derive all the LEGAL benefits that are today granted only to those in traditional marriages.

Swanny

But they have no legal claim to any word otherwise you would not see the hunters bible or the fishmans bible or anything else. Words are just words and no one group can lay claim to a word and prevent other groups from using it.

I agree just trying to make it clear no group can lay claim to a word unless it is somehow a trademark or something and I don't see any trademarks by the word marriage

I agree that no word can be claimed, but natural order is just that... if you want to be a union in a thing that by most standards is considered un-natural then you must bear the reprocussions and discust of those who do not have the same feelings.

If all you want is common rights to health care, etc. as a couple then that is different, but do not try to make it seem a way of nature because it is not.

All power to those who fight for this right, but it still will never make it right in my book.

Again just my humble opinion.

well, okay, the problem seems to be that one side see's marriage as something utterly religious, the other side see's it as something that's a word.

So far so good. Oldraven, do not accuse me of selective reading, I read all posts and I read all posts in the same way. But I sometimes mess things up or I don't understand them the right way.

But you did say it was defined by the church and I say no. People have entered a bond before and they probably will go on doing that. I do see the role of church in history and I acknowledge it. Anyways: The church defines a rite that is done IN the church. I do not know how it is handled in Canada but in Germany it is still called marriage when you go to the nearest town-house and get married, but it does not involve the same rites. It just changes your status as a couple - and that does not have anything to do with the church rites. The basic thing at the town-house is done like this: Clerk asks if you really want to get married, you say yes, sign a your new name under a document which states your legal rights as a couple and you go out and you're married.
If you do that as same sex couple or not is your own thing.

The basic definition of marriage is, at least over here and I state it again: Entering a life-long bond which has you officially sharing your life with your partner.

Shadows: I ask it again, if it is not natural, why does homosexuality exist?

EDIT: I forgot to add that the town-clerk also tells you about all the legal stuff that's involved in it...

ANOTHER EDIT: Civil Union is a good word for it, I'm going to use that from now on, although it stays, in my mind at least, the same thing

If I could anwser that Aon I would be a rich man!

If it is your ( all inclusive, not your personal ) cup of tea, then go for it !

I have many homsexual friends that can't explain that either, but they do wonder why!?!

I am not sitting in judgement of anyone , just saying don't make something that the majority feels is wrong an issue to be over come in a nite or even an decade.

The books of most major religions do not support such things, not saying it is right or wrong , but I do tend to agree. Only the answer in the end times will tell how this debate will end.