Gay/Lesbian religious unions (Marriage)

[MrBishop]

Working for an Anglican church in Canada means that I am innundated with questions and opinion on the topic daily. Some people are all for it...no restrictions, others are opposed to the term "Marriage" being used for homosexuals because the common definition for marriage is between a man and a woman. Some don't like the idea because marriage should be for procreation only.

For me...it's a rights issue...equal treatment under the law, but there is that seperation between church and state to consider. The church is not supposed to step in between the people and their gvt. but Pop John Paul proved that this is not the case.

Opinions?

 

[Professur]

It's wrong. See my collected works for reasons.

 

[freako104]

ive said it before: its their life and they should have the right to do so if they choose.

 

[Professur]

They have the right to do as they choose. I don't object to that (well, yes, I do. But I'm not going to attack them for it) But it's calling it marriage that I object to. Call it civil union. Call it legally bound. Call it significant other. I don't care. But marriage is already defined.

 

[Nixy]

Yeah, personally I see NOTHING wrong with equal rights for homosexual couples and being legally united and such but marriage is defined within the church...and although I am completely all for their equal rights and don't really practice religion nor have it in my life in anyway I don't think religions should be forced to adapt after all these years...if they choose to that is cool (very cool) but a certain religion shouldn't be given hassel if they don't...

 

[Spot]

splitting hairs.
if 2 people love each other enough to commit their lives to each other its a marriage.
put them in seperate boxes if you wish, but it all means the same thing.

 

[greenfreak]

I don't here in the US that marraige is really defined by the church considering that you can get legally married without a priest or rabbi. Judges and notaries can marry people, right? Marraige in itself is defined by government, I believe. I don't know the exact wording but it's funny that I watched a rerun of The West Wing last night and this is exactly what they were discussing. That US states can decide on a case-by-case basis if they'll allow gay marraiges. The benefits part is sticky though, I don't think they're on board yet. At least I don't know a married gay couple that shares a health plan. Then again, it isn't legal in NY.

 

[MrBishop]

Here's the rub-what if they're God-Loving people who want to celebrate their love in front of God and marry in a church?

 

[Spot]

talk about unrequited love....

according to the church, those people are an affront to god

 

[greenfreak]

Depends on the religion. You know Roman Catholic churches aren't going to do that and if you're already a member of that church, you know damn well it ain't happenin, right or wrong. If you choose to worship there, you choose to abide by the laws of the church. If that doesn't include same sex marraiges, so be it. If you don't like that, convert to Lutheran.

 

[Nixy]

GF said what i was thinking!!!

You can choose your religion (and can convert if you choose something other than how you were raised/baptised)! If your religion doesn't agree with same sex marriages then why are you even in that religion????

 

[Gonzo]

If one is a member of a certain church, they have already chosen. If they decide to change for social etiquestte they weren't believers in the first place were they?