Over fall break, I [Sarah] was sitting with my dad and grandma, watching the news. When a reporter commented on the new gay marriage laws passed in Connecticut, my grandma went on a rant clearly stating her disapproval and how much “these people” sickened her. My dad was quick to agree, he brought up why these laws were against our religious views and about how they are all sinners; ‘marriage is meant to be shared only between man and woman, nothing else.’ But it wasn’t that they solely were against the marriage of same sex couples, but they were criticizing them being open about their ways and being together at all. I didn’t know how to react, so I was left to sit there. I knew I couldn’t voice my opinion without them verbally attacking my views. I have a somewhat in-between opinion; I don’t believe that the government should have the power to prevent civil union between same sex couples, but I do not think that they should be able to be united by marriage within the church. Gay couples do have the right to be happy and be together, but I have been raised and taught (Catholic schooling for 13 years) that it is against my religion as well as some others.
I[Whitney] would have to say that I agree with Sarah on this issue. I also was raised to be a devout Catholic, and even though I'm open to considering all situations, I can't possibly give up the morals that my religion says I should believe. I believe that love is love, and I believe that a person can't choose who he or she loves, even if it does mean that the significant other is of the same sex. I believe that marriage is a sacred union, and yes, the government has no right to interfere. But in the sacred confines of a church, and also due to the separation of church and state, the church, not the government, has a right to choose who it will marry. I believe that homosexuals should not get to challenge the church's wishes, why should anyone get to challenge beliefs that are specifically laid out in a religion's guidelines? A civil union is acceptable, but let's take a dive into reality.
However, considering that America accepts all religions, do you think that we should grant gays the right to be united by marriage in the church? Do they have the right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Is gay marriage right? i believe that it is. recently my best friend who i have known all my life finally came out of the closet. i'm very proud of him for finally accepting it, but i cant help but think of all the troubles that are ahead of him. what happens when he falls in love and people look down to him? What if he realizes that he wants to spend the rest of his life with his partner? But the only catch is, he can only have a "life partner". What makes a gay person so different from someone who is straight?nothing. So what's wrong with gay people being able to have a legal marriage? I know the church disapproves, but i don't understand why. I know the bible says man and woman. i just dont agree. (and this coming from a girl who went to a catholic school all 14 years of her school career.) I dont think it matters who you love, as long as it is LOVE. thats all that matters to me
It's worth pointing out that marriage is both a legal institution and a religious sacrament, and that the two are not necessarily connected. A heterosexual couple can marry without setting foot in a church; a Justice of the Peace (a state officer) is all that is required.
The legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Connecticut would not require churches to perform same-sex weddings; it concerns whether the state will recognize same-sex marriages as legal. And Prop 8, the current ballot measure in California, is an effort to repeal similar legislation.
There is a difference between marriage and a civil union. The government should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage by definition is a religious act. (Or as Dr. Sitter mentions, you can place "legal" in front of it to completely change the meaning) Now if a religion wants to accept same-sex marriage, that's fine. But the government should be completely out of it. They shouldn't even be involved with marriage between a man and woman. What they should be involved in are civil unions, which exist for legal benefits, and there is no reason not to pass on the same legal benefits you give a man and a woman than to a man and man or woman and woman. I don't think there should be an argument whether such unions are even legal, because that is coming from a religious view point, and we are supposed to be a completely secular state.
Love is love. I believe that people cannot control who they love, but that all love is beautiful. What if you were not allowed to marry the one you loved? I find the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to get married to be completely appauling. Last year, at my church, First Unitarian, Rev. Sharon Dittmar gave a wonderful sermon on gay marriage and gay rights. I encourage all of you to read it. Here is a link to the text: http://www.firstuu.com/Sunday_Services/Sermon_Archive/2007/10-7-07.pdf
Also, she is a WONDERFUL speaker, so if you would rather listen to her sermon follow the link below and then scroll down to the sermon on 10-07-07 entitled"“Love and Righteousness”
A Sermon in Honor of Rainbow Sunday" and click "sermon":
http://www.firstuu.com/Sunday_Services/Sermon_Archive/Sermon_Index.htm
I agree with Carl. It is perfectly sensible to allow two consenting adults to enter into a contract that recognizes their love and devotion to one another (not legitimizes, but recognizes, because government should not be involved in love). There is no reason gays should not have the same legal protections as other couples. And call this union on either side between any sex whatever you want, but the government should absolutely not step past the church doors.
My attempt to clear up confusion seems to have magnified it. Carl, Ryan, the government currently has
everything to do with marriage. You're not effectively married unless the government acknowledges the union as legal; no church has to. Again, the gay marriage legislation (both pro and con) has implications only for the legal aspects of marriage.
Are you arguing for the abolition of marriage as a legal institution, period? Because that would be...interesting.
Looking at my comment, Dr. Sitter, perhaps I am. I am being very pragmatic. To me the best solution to all this debate is to simply let government authorize legal contracts between adults so that they can enjoy the privileges and "rights" of marriage- hospital visits, inheritance, custody, etc.
However, I know that this will cause a lot of disturbance because many will say that government should endorse only heterosexual unions to foster the procreation of the species. But wouldn't that happen anyway without government giving it special privileges?
Alas, but then does our country deteriorate to the point of indiscriminate casual sex or purely "test tube babies" if no one gets married in the eyes of the law? I know this is extreme (and probably not entirely clear), but it should hopefully demonstrate that there are many dimensions to this debate and I am unsure which answer is the best one.
In response to the original question, I do not believe that the church should grant same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage goes against the values and teaching of the church. With that said, I do believe that everyone should have equal rights when it comes to the law. There is no reason that a same-sex couple should not have the right to marry just like any other heterosexual couple. The laws should not reflect a belief of a certain faith, but rather the American people.
Yes I am Dr. Sitter. The legal institution of marriage should be more properly called civil unions (or legal contracts as Ryan calls them, its the same thing). The same benefits such as Ryan mentioned are still involved, and there isn't any religious connotation in the word.
I think that the government should allow homosexuals the right to marry. The church does not have to allow homosexuals to marry in the church, but the government should not stop homosexuals from getting married. I do not understand why this is such a hot issue because the government is completely separate from religion. The government should not regulate marriage based on any religious reasons.
I am afraid that I must recomment on this post and modify my original claims. After thinking this issue througha little more thoroughly, I think I actually come down on the side that favors keeping traditional marriage as it is already defined (and as it has been for a very very long time) but also adopting civil unions as an option for homosexual couples. I think I was a bit extreme in my previous comment.
I know this topic has already drawn a lot of similar opinions, but hey...what's one more?
I draw my morals from my Catholic faith. After years of Catholic schooling and the sacrament of confirmation, I feel strong enough to go with my beliefs even on an issue as tough as this. I don't believe in gay marriage, but I also do not connect it to "civil union."
It's not that the issue is objective to me - it's on a personal level too. One of my best friends is gay, too. When he makes it to Hollywood's red carpet someday, I'll be his date. I care immensely about him, and it's difficult to look him in the eyes and tell him I don't believe in gay marriage, but he respects my Catholic identity the same way I respect his gay identity. He should be commended merely on the fact that we're best friends, and he openly accepts my opinion on the matter.
I'll have to go with Carl on this one - the government should be able to issue civil unions between [any] two people, and marriage should be left to the churches.
I agree with Elizabeth on this issue. If church and state really are separate, then why does the government have the power to discriminate against gay marriage? Although I am a catholic and have been raised in the faith, I don't think that the government can tell a gay couple that they cannot marry. If the church wants to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, that is fine but the government should allow any two people to marry under U.S. law.
I am in favor of allowing gay marriage. I think it would be only fair, because they are humans too. Just because they are gay doesn't mean that they are people too, and they deserve ll the same rights as straight people. If a gay couple wants to get married, I think they should be able to.
Like many of the comments already stated, I believe the government should recognize gay marriage, while the Church should not be obligated to. The government is supposed to separate church and state, so they should recognize marriage as the union of two people regardless of their sex. The church should not recognize same sex marriage because it has been stated in the bible that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman. I think it is completely fine for two men or women to love one another. But they don’t need to be united in the eyes of the church.
Post a Comment