
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
I have the feeling there are plenty of homosexuals who don't want to get married simply because they don't want to be seen as copying the hetereosexual way; perhaps lanth could confirm or deny this.
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.
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.
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.
OK, so the 'we don't want marriage' group is a minority; thank you.
We may disagree on this point; HOWEVER I think we can both agree that western marriage was constructed by the church, governed by the church. Why should the state get involved with a church matter?
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.
The state shouldn't give any benefits to married couples, nor should they be involved with marriage.
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.
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?
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.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."