Western marriage as it stands now is quite different from greek marriage. Western marriage as it stands now was started by christians, as it says in the article. From then on, it varied as to how much state involvement there was.

I agreed as to what marriage was; telling your friends and family and community that you are officially commited to each other with a spoken vow witnessed by said friends and family.

First off, I'm not a "tame gay" you can just ask questions of an expect an answer. You're just as capable of doing research as I am.

Secondly, sure, there are always people in all minority groups that choose to reject a tradition or custom practised by a majority in order to differentiate themselves from that majority. In this case I don't think that the general gay population has a larger than usual group of people who reject marriage as a "heterosexual practice" compared to any other minority group that rejects some practice of their counterpart majority.

You're side-stepping the question. The state IS involved with marriage already. Whether you think it should be or not is irrelevant to whether the state should be extending the privileges granted by marriage to a minority that are currently unable to partake in those privileges.

If you want to argue that gays should not be able to be married because it's a religious thing the state should have no involvement in, then you MUST first (and also) argue that the state should not be extending any privileges to any married couples whatsoever. Those of the religious right in the US want to have their cake and eat it too, however.

Yes, this was how the Greeks did it, before Christianity came along and added a bunch of extra crap to it. That is all it should be. That is how it should be today. And if marriage is exactly what I have quoted from you above, than I see no reason whatsoever why homosexuals should not be allowed do it. If you want to say homosexuals aren't allowed have a Christian marriage, and you've got the Bible quotes to back it up, I'm agreeing with you there. However, a secular marriage, homosexuals should not excluded from.

Are we in agreement?

Marriage can be religious. It is usually a religious institution. But the ceremony is also a manifestation of their love for each other, or their commitment for each other. Or it can be a symbolic thing of joining the families, or of the community acknowledging the love and commitment of the two people getting married. I mean, part of the vows (at least of the weddings I've been to) include a little send off asking the attendants to recognize the couple for what they are.]

Not sure what you're getting at here; I asked a question of someone more knowledgable in a particular area; I'd be happy to answer any religious questions you had, and I'm not sure why you wouldn't answer any questions about homosexuality that I had.
OK, so the 'we don't want marriage' group is a minority; thank you.
The state shouldn't give any benefits to married couples, nor should they be involved with marriage.
Ancient Greeks didn't have a spoken vow, or didn't HAVE to have one. There's no indication of whether friends and family were present, nor is there any indication that there had to be any ceremony at all; they had simply to say Let's get married, and BAM they were. This is not what western marriage is.

A civil union, fine, anyone should be able to have one of those, whatever they are, as long as the civil magistrate agrees to that union. A MARRIAGE, as it stands in western culture, is religious, and should only be done by the church. If a particular church will do a gay marriage, fine. I have a problem with that but I'll not stop them or say they are not allowed to do that; the state shouldn't have that power.

So while I'm against homosexuals being married, I'm also against the state interfering with a church which may decide to marry homosexuals, and the state giving any benefits to married couples, and the state giving many benefits at all to anyone.

It should be noted that wanting a right and wanting to exercise that right are two different things. I'm a very apathetic individual, and while I want the right to vote, I don't feel like voting.

I respectfully disagree. Marriage has both religious ties and governmental ties that are independent of each other. I know quite a few couples that are non-religious and others that have religious beliefs outside of Christianity that have been married. If marriage were truly, purely a religious construct in western culture, we would have no laws regarding it or paperwork needed to make it official.

Your argument is saying the state should have no control over marriage at all, which would be fine were it not for marriage existing in the state's law.

As a side question, do Christians or the religion of Christianity regard homosexuals as inferior to heterosexuals?

I know the state currently HAS got a lot of control over marriage; I just don't think they should. I have a lot of libertarian leanings, BTW. Libertarians make a lot of sense with relation to Christianity.
No. Nor do we consider murderers or rapists or thieves to be inferior. All men are equal in the eyes of God. This doesn't mean we approve of their actions, but everyone sins, including Christians, so to consider ANYONE inferior would be a huge hypocrisy, and certainly not Christian.

I am not trolling, and in principal I agree with you (especially on the matter of gay marriage in this instance: although I do not ever plan to have a gay marriage, I still support it to the extent I mentioned in my first post)...but I must wonder if you find this at all hypocritical? Although with voting it will never happen, are you afraid of "use it or lose it?" Although a rather obscure example, I would wonder if someone might lose it in a way that someone might lose the right to land through adverse possession...that is, if your neighbor tends to and claims ownership to part of your property for an extended amount of time (a common example is a driveway built on your property used by him), the neighbor can claim the land via adverse possession. Don't get me wrong - adverse possession was created with the best intentions, but since then is more often than not corrupted.


No, not at all. Many denominations are fine with it, and then it varies even more by church.

If you'd like to, check out this list on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

Hypocritical how? Just because I personally do not want to do something doesn't mean I shouldn't have that right, or that I should be able to "lose" the right. I see adverse possession more resembling losing property if you don't exercise your property rights, but you don't actually lose your property rights. Really, the same fundamental thing happens with voting, where if you don't vote for an election before the deadline, you lose the ability to vote for that particular election, but you don't lose your voting rights. At least that's how I view the scenarios.

And really, the reason I don't vote is because I don't follow politics as much as I personally believe I should (because I don't really care much about political drama), and I don't want to vote ignorantly.

Thanks for confirming that; that was actually a lovely explanation.

Well that is a very good reason then

I meant one church can marry only homosexuals, another can marry only heterosexuals, if those separate churches choose to do so. The government cannot dictate whether churches can marry only one kind of couple. The state should give equal benefits to any couple that is legally married or civil union'd (sorry for the confusion).

So basically once we obviously allow gay marriage from the state, gays will be able to go to churches that allow gay-marriage and marry? PERFECT SOLUTION! They don't want to be married by a homophobic church anyhow.

This is essentially what the delay in passing the recent New York State bill for allowing gay marriage boiled down to. The people who wouldn't vote in favour wanted additional protections so that if a church declined to marry a gay couple, that they couldn't be sued for discrimination, Makes perfect sense to me and I seriously don't think that many gay men and women would object to that, simply because they are unlikely to want to be married by such a church anyway. Seems like the only people who'd have a problem with those provisions would be anyone that wanted to be a professional grievance filer.

So then, Separate but Equal?

One of the biggest things that annoys me with gay people is that I know nothing about their social norms. I can't talk with someone when their conversation involves cooking a burger that's cooked in avacado paste and sixteen different spices from malaysia that I've never heard of. When I eat a burger, its got meat, cheese, ketchup, maybe lettuce and tomato? I don't know how to make these people laugh, I don't know whats offensive to them, ect. I have a gay cousin that I get along great with because he's like a normal guy, and when I make fun of him for being gay he'll make fun of me for being straight, no big deal. But I have a gay friend on the other side of the spectrum, if I slip up and say "thats gay" instead of "thats stupid" or something, he freaks out. And I hate how they're always running around naked at their parades and shit. Yeah we get it, even straight people want to run around naked sometimes, but get with the program and put your shirt back on. My point is, gay people want help with their rights and shit, so help us straight people help you. Maybe put the rainbows away while we're around so that the last couple centuries of anti-gayness built into society doesn't freak us out before we can even say two words to you. If we could get past this sort of problem I don't think gay marriage would be such a big issue.

@Vrael
Ya i know exactly you feel; its like they are a different species (no inferiority implied) its just that they are different. Talking to someone which says things you don't understand is like trying to talk to someone dead or an animal.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 5 2011, 2:33 am by Tempz.

Vrael, your entire tone and attitude is homophobic.

Merely by saying that, you are implying that for a gay person to be "like a normal guy" is somehow unusual or different from other gay men who are, presumably, not normal guys in your opinion. You'll probably disagree with that assessment, but those are simply the words you chose to use, and they give away your inner attitudes more than you think.

Heh. Trolling or not (tone seemed awfully un-Vraelike), I agree with Vrael. The gays I personally know are great, and though I'm not personally close friends with them, they're good people. But crap like gay pride parades and other such techniques to attract attention irritate me greatly.

Call me homophobic all you want. I'm also racist, sexist, and a ton of other things to varying extents.

And, yes, CAFG, 'separate but equal' is as good a term is any for it. I believe that if the concept is applied in a specialized fashion (as in, the only difference is 'union' vs 'marriage'), there won't be any problems.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 5 2011, 2:10 am by Centreri.

That's because I think being gay is weird. Not necessarily wrong, not necessarily bad, but I grew up with a bunch of straight guys and girls. To me, gay is usually little more than a topic of controversy that people in congress make a big fuss about. And like I said about the last couple centuries of anti-gayness built into society, yeah, gay guys aren't normal by the standards of this society we have which happens to be anti gay. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say social norms. You may think you're normal, but according to the social norm I grew up in, and probably a large majority of people as well judging by the controversy, you're not. Now, that social norm probably needs changing, and probably will change with time, but for now gay people should recognize that it exists just as much as straight people should recognize that it's wrong. So yeah, recognize that I'm homophobic, and be a little less homo so that I can be a little less phobic. I'm not saying be straight, just reign the flambouyancy in a little bit for cooperation's sake.

What's funny is when gay people complain about ultra-flamboyant gay people. Irrelevant thought btw.

Disagree. Though I am not gay, I thought this upon the outset. But upon reading through vrael's statements, he was not saying that all gay people are somehow "weird and different" but that flamboyantly gay people, people who go to parades with ... no... are weird and different. Which is a true statement. If I wanted to be daring, I could say that your immediate attitude of reactionary hostility evinces the idea of you looking for means to appear the victim in a situation to gain sympathy.