Should homosexuals have the right to get married?

Though the statement does not pertain to my opinion of same-sex marriage, you still must realize that what is moral and what is right are two different things, hence 'moral', and 'right'.

Because marriage has ventured further than the Church doesn't mean that when you bring it down to the tee, it's not a ritual from religion.

Furthermore, I don't believe saying that marriage is a RELIGIOUS ritual is misleading at all. The point blank is that marriage was made from a religion where same-sexes were not allowed to participate.

It doesn't matter that some states have dropped this tradition. It doesn't matter that some states don't allow it. If it all were final, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, again, the POINT BLANK is that the concept of """MARRIAGE""" was made from a long-existing religion where same-sexes were not allowed to participate.

It is as simple as that.

 

agreed

no, it just means you can't force a religion to use that ritual on you. you could find some renegade priest and have him marry you.

also: some religions are ok with gay marriage.

ftfy

 

If you did find such a priest, one who went against the wishes of that religion to use a ritual from that religion, then it's really not marriage, is it?

I mean, it's a cheap imitation of marriage, SURE.
But marriage? I disagree.

DropKickSayWha?

 

Yea, they passed gay marriage in NY a little while ago. But what took such time? And people still appose it. It just get's past by majority, not unanimous.

 

Personally in my OWN opinion marriage should be between a man and a women.

 

Yes they should have the right
But the point is i think they would be a wrong model for the childeren IF they are gonna adopt one

 

Why do you feel that way?

 

Uhhh, you're not going to have a homosexual relationship because of media and other influences. It'll be because of your sexual orientation.

 

Why the fuck not?

 

This is the assumed response of one who, in a debate, as nothing to counter-argue to the opposite debater.

Also, if you had read my post, you would notice that I did respond to your points. Your points of the church and your points of state regulation, which is really what that big jumble of words was about. There were no other points that could be debated with objectively, or even subjectively, for that matter.

 

Yeah, why not there just the same as us *KIND OF*.

 

I wouldn't even call this a debate; it's you asserting fallacious claims that marriage is a religious ritual, Finn rightly pointing out the concept of evolution in society, and finally; you ignoring it and going on more erroneous rants about marriage being religious. You must get something, Finn is not denying that marriage was a product of religion, but that marriage has developed past those constraints. As well, half the time you don't even make sense.

 

No i belive in God Way's to live to make more human life with Gay's/Lesbains cant have baby's

 

I think homosexual should be able to get married. I am not homosexual. But I do support they should get the same rights as an other person should get.

 

I don't believe that any human has the right to decide who CAN get married or who CANNOT.
--
I hope you all realize that "banning homosexuals to marry" will only last for a few more years. The Constitution and Prop. 8 are SO not on the same page.

 

Marriage for homosexuals is fine in my opinion.

It just means giving them the same legal rights as a normal married couple. It doesn't have to mean a church ceremony etc.

On the subject of whether a married homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt and raise children however, I think it is less clear cut.

 

Why can't they adopt/raise children? Just because one is homosexual does not mean they don't have the ability to love, raise, and take care of children..

 

A child’s primary role models are his or her parents. Bringing a heterosexual child up in a gay household gives them a distorted view of a minority sexuality, just as a girl brought up by two men would fail to benefit from a feminine influence.

 

By the religion it was made by, it is a major sin to be homosexual. If they don't want a huge sin to taint their ceremony. They can do whatever they want.

 

I agree on this, but it isn't that simple. As long as the state supports the church, everyone is paying for the church. How can you justify keeping homosexuals out of the church when the homosexuals are forced to sustain it?

I don't see how this could be solved properly if church and state don't split. But of course the church doesn't want that, since that would mean it had to sustain itself without public funding.