I’m here in Massachusetts, and know tons of same-sex couples who are married or who wish to be married. Have yet to meet anyone who wanted to marry in a church. I hear this used as a straw-man argument by people wishing to kill gay-marriage bills.

Same-sex couples want the same rights afforded them by the state as opposite-sex couples. Nothing less. Nothing more.

Not going to argue “civil union” nonsense.

So you have nothing against gay people, but they can not even start to think to step foot in your church because your religion says it is not allowed to be a couple of same sex?
Edit: You can believe it or not, but gay people are, well, i already said it, people…., people who just like straight people want to marry in churches.
Other straight persons don’t want anything to do with churches, as will other gay persons.

Why do straight people want to get married in a church?

I’ve used that too much. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights as everyone else?

Many gay people share your faith in Jesus and simply believe that the organized Church is wrong on this issue.

I’m straight, got married in a civil ceremony, haven’t set foot in a church in years. But I understand why some would.

I should also add that I did not marry in a church, and don’t know any straight people who have either, other than some strange family members and people getting married for the third time.

Oh my god, people get married in the church ‘cause it’s tradition and everyone around them does it not because they’re so religious or think deeply about ‘holy unions’. Gay people are religious too, sometimes, and want to get married in the church since they find it the normal thing to do.

1. There are churches that recognize gay marriage.

2. Marriage is not a “religious institution.” Marriage predates your religion by several thousand years. It was originally an economic contract, where a man essentially buys his wife from his father-in-law (her previous owner) for a little more than the price of a slave. This is how the Bible portrays marriage; of course the Bible just cribbed this from the Babylonians.

All that said, if you’re a member of some backwards church who thinks homosexuality is wrong because it says so in Leviticus (6 or so chapters before it explicitly says you can buy slaves from foreigners and pass them down to your kids), by all means, don’t let gays get married there.

@rebbel i never said that they couldnt go in a church.I said that they shouldnt get marry there because the bible doesnt allow that.But of course they are welcome there.

So gays can’t be Christian?
TOTALLY AGREE WITH @Qingu.
Well said.

@noly the Bible says a ton of crap that you shouldn’t do but probably do anyway on a daily basis so PLEASE _

@noly, the Bible also says that a newlywed bride who can’t prove her virginity on her wedding night must be stoned to death on the doorstep of her father’s house (Deuteronomy 22).

Do you think woman who can’t prove their virginity should be allowed to get married in church?

Because there does exist such a thing as a Religious LGBorT that would like to have the feeling that God approves of their life choice to be together til death do them apart. And if such a being existed, why shouldn’t he or she?

I imagine those who do want to get married in a church want to for the same reasons that those who do who are straight do. They are religious and it has meaning for them.

Some gay people would say “My God is a loving God”. So, why shouldn’t they?

@noly My apologies, indeed you didn’t say that.

@Qingu i was talking about “christians”.I believe in Jesus Christ who renewed our alliance with God and most of the laws you re talking about dont appear in his teaching in the new testament and we dont have follow them.Furthermore i ll invite you to read these bible verses.Homosexual practices are explicitly condemned in Romans 1:26–28; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:9–10.Christians must not promote or celebrate sinful practices, but overcome them.Thats why i think gays shoudnt marry in a church.

We have freedom of religion in this country. People can marry in any church that will accept them. The Metropolitan Community Church is a church that is quite open to gay people. I do believe it is a Christian church, as well.

I’m sure you’re aware that there are hundreds of different sects of Christianity, and some of their beliefs are quite opposite those of other sects. Your sect may have something against gay people, but your sect is probably a minority amongst Christians.

But let me ask you this. Why do you want to marry? What if I told you you couldn’t marry because you belonged to the wrong branch of Christianity? You could however, have a civil union, which, as you know, is just as good. Right?

Why is it disrespectful of christians? Why should christians be able to marry who they love but homosexuals can’t? I think that is disrespectful to push your beliefs on someone else. That is exactly what christians do when they fight the right to gay marriage. I am straight. I don’t honestly give a damn who gets married to whom. I give a damn when one group restricts the rights of another.

@wundayatta Well said.
@Russell_D_SpacePoet Well said.

@noly I don’t think you can expand your restriction to all Christian churches, just apply it to your own.

The whole point about marriage equality is that your premise that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman is disputed. Many people believe marriage is a sacred or societal union of two people who love each other.

@wundayatta i should inform you that christians churches which marry gay couple are the minority.let me remind you that the catholic church which has more than 1 billions menbers out of 2.2 billions christians doesnt practice it.
@Russell_D_SpacePoet ,its not about gay right.i belive that all citizen of a country should have the same rights and be equal against the law.But there is a clear separation between the state which grant citizen their rights and the church which can perform marriage according to christians beliefs.And our belief doesnt allow us to perform a gay marriage although gay are welcomed in our churches.
@zenvelo its not about what people believe,its about what our religion teaches us.And again gay can have civil union which confers the same right.The law can even call civil union marriage if gays feel offended but our belief doesnt allow us celebrate it in a church.The majority of christians believe thats the case.

Huh? Civil marriage is a legal marriage it has nothing to do with church. There are churches around that perform gay ceremonies. If they want to get married in a church, they need to find one that will do it. It is a separate issues than being legally married. I really don’t care about what the churches do, as long as they aren’t killing anyone. I only care that under our laws as Americans everyone has equal civil rights.

It is an important ceremony for increasing numbers of gay religious couples who wish to adopt or father/bear children through the help of a surrogate, if they wish to baptise and raise their children with religious values.

First off, Civil Unions are not the same as Marriage. The argument is they are, but the truth is they aren’t. Even in California, civil unions are like dogs being married.
Second, Gay men and women just want their love to be recognized as just the same as everyone else.

@noly In Matthew 5:18 Jesus specifically said that ALL of the old testament was still valid and would be for all time. So @Qingu‘s question about non virgins marrying in church is perfectly valid, and spiritually dishonest of you to dodge.

@meiosis Didn’t notice Jesus [he who is without sin] stoning any non-virgin brides.

@anartist Your point being?

He obviously didn’t practice what he preached, if he said “ALL of the old testament was still valid and would be for all time” and also said “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”

Well, what Jesus did or didn’t do is moot, as evidence for his life, deeds and words is pretty thin, but for someone who believes, as @noly does, it is at best disingenuous to selectively apply some bits of his supposed teachings and not others. As well as being against homosexuality, they should also be against companion planting, cotton/polyester trousers, men with crushed testicles etc.

@meiosis you don’t get my point.There is a difference between being a sinner and celebrate or promote a sin.

We still haven’t got our government to pass a bill legalising gay marriage. Personally, I think whatever your sexual persuasion, you should be able to get married in a church OR in a civil ceremony. For now though, I would just like to get the legislation through so everyone has the same legal rights. Then we can start on the religious organisations. Pollies here already use the religion card as their argument for why they can’t pass this bill. Personally, I don’t think the two things connect.

@Bellatrix Let the churches continue to discriminate when it comes to marriage, really I don’t think we want our government telling churches what to do. My rabbi would not do interreligious marriages, his perogative, prefectly legal and ok in my mind. One of the things the religious spread through there emails and churches is the US federal liberal government wants to force to clergy perform gay marriages and that is total bullshit, and will never happen, and in my opinion no one should want it to happen. Separation of church and state.

Does this really need to be asked? Some gay people are religious, and think their religion should recognize their marriage. Simple as that.

And not all religions, even all Christian religions, are so narrow in their view of marriage. Marriages are a social contract, and have been long before the church existed. And it hasn’t always been strictly between a man and woman.

I always find it interesting that these debates always gravitate to the argument that gays love each other as much as straight people. Hell, I think you could make an argument that they love each other more. They certainly go through more diversity in doing so. The real question is why we get married and why the government would sanction such a ritual. And the biggest question of why they would provide any incentive to do so. Do you honestly believe that the government cares whether you love each other or not? Hell, do they care whether you like each other?

As noted above, marriage has been around longer than Christianity and has been sanctioned in virtually every civilization. And if you look back in time, love was not the criteria. Think about what was the criteria.

Why wouldn’t they? If they share religious beliefs they would want to celebrate their marriage in their church why not?
“Marriage is a religious institution and the sacred union between a man and a woman.” Um, a lot of people share that opinion but it’s obviously false. Lots of opposite gender marriages are civil ceremonies, i.e Not religious. And there are lots marriages these days that are not opposite gender unions.

Every time I hear the argument that gays getting married in a church is disrespectful to (straight, presumably) Christians, I want to start my own church in which only gays can get married, and see if you think it’s a good policy then. And the Bible doesn’t say jack shit about gays getting married in a church. It condemns homosexuality (or rather, homosexual acts), but doesn’t really speak to the much more modern issue of gay marriage. Who woulda thunk it, what with it being written thousands of years ago…

Most states don’t recognize civil unions.

@noly, why do you think Jesus abolished the old laws?

As far as New Testament quotes, did not Paul say the law is “holy, just, and good”? (Romans 7:12)

Gay people just want the same rights that everyone else has & if their rights can be impinged…... then the rights of all of us are in danger. We do not have the right to deprive people of their rights just because we do not agree with how they choose to live their lives – they are not hurting us – they have the right to live their own lives.

@Jaxk, marriage was originally an economic institution whereby a husband purchases his wife from the wife’s father (her previous owner), generally for a little more than the cost of a slave.

So I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that marriage today should be patterned after this original conception?

@Qingu Actually, I think there is a good point in there. Marriage laws are about money and property in the end. No reason why homosexual men and women should not have the same protections under the law as heterosexuals.

What? Civil Unions are legal? They are not recognized by the federal government…

~ @JLeslie, but if we recognize gay marriages, then “those people” will be wanted the same things that other people have and can do, like go to church, join a country club, hand out candy to kids at halloween, join the Rotary Club, adopt children, go to Disney World… Lawdy, Miss Leslie, what will the world come to? facetious here…parent of gay child.

@Qingu

No, the intent of marriage is to create a family. In ancient Japan, the man would move in with the women’s parents until the woman had a baby and then they’d get married and move out. In ancient Rome the man could return the woman to her parents if she turned out to be barren. He would get a refund but had to return the presents. Even in the bible, it is all about having children. There was no such return policy if the woman didn’t ‘Love You’. People tend to smear the bible as anti-gay but in fact it is all about not having sex of any kind except to have children. Hell, sex is the original sin. it’s why we’re all born in sin (or so they say). They allow for sex if you have children. Hell it’s one of the prime reasons God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It wasn’t because those people didn’t love each other.

Even today, the marriage laws are all about creating a family. It’s the only reason there is government involvement.

@Jaxk That is not the only reason there is government involvement. It protects children, protects women (although now women are more financially independent so it is less necessary) and probably brings money into the state by charging for marriage licenses and divorce for that matter.

@noly

“Would you like it if i go to your place and teach you how to live whereas you re free to live the way you want.”

Um…that’s exactly what you are trying to do to gay people. You’re telling them they are sinners and that they cannot have the same privileges that you do.

Lets see… a gay couple would be deciding between:
1) Have god recognize their marriage; vs
2) Not offending people.

Seems like an easy enough decision for a person who believes in god.

@Qingu “So I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that marriage today should be patterned after this original conception?”

I don’t think I’ve seen a more disingenuous interpretation of a statement in a long time. The point was that marriage is not a “Christian thing” and therefore calling a Christian interpretation of marriage “correct” doesn’t make sense. You’re welcome to disagree with that point, and there are ways to do so without being disingenuous…

@noly First, I do not understand why you are asking this question. There is no political movement to force churches to marry gay couples. Churches are allowed to make that decision for themselves, and some decided to allow it before it became a major legal issue. The church in which I was raised has effectively been open to gay marriage since 1985, and one of my music professors from college was married to his same-sex partner in a Polish church in the 90s. This was despite the fact that the marriage could not be legally binding when they returned to the United States where they lived.

Second, civil unions do not come with the same rights as marriage. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and are not covered by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Even if they did confer the same rights, however, they would still be an example of de jure segregation and thus unconstitutional. “Separate but equal” doesn’t fly in the United States of America.

Third, marriage is not a religious institution. In many cultures, it started off as nothing more than an arrangement between two people who wanted to start a domestic partnership. In other cultures, it was a trade agreement between fathers seeking to end wars or create bonds. The church and the state got involved in marriage at about the same time, and that wasn’t until the 16th century.

Fourth, religious reasons are irrelevant to legal reasoning under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and marriage has been a civil right in the US since at least Loving v. Virginia (direct quote from the Court: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival”). As such, the popular opposition to same-sex marriage is largely groundless, and laws preventing same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Fifth, it is not the case that homosexuality is unambiguously condemned in the Bible. There are numerous issues of translation and interpretation involved, none of which I will elaborate on here. See this post for a (somewhat lengthy) discussion of a few central points in the debate.

@Jaxk The “family” argument doesn’t work, as we have discussed before. Marriage is completely unnecessary for procreation or survival, and heterosexuality is completely unnecessary to raise children or have a family. For one thing, couples are often considered family units on their own. My wife and I, for instance, are a family; but if we are a family, so too could a same-sex couple be a family. For another, we would never let infertility undermine a heterosexual person’s right to marry today, so even the argument from potentiality fails.

@noly The bible, and Jesus, condemns mixed-fibre clothes; should brides wearing cotton/lycra blend underwear be prevented from getting married in church, so as to avoid the accusation that the church is promoting and celebrating such un-biblical garments? After all, the fact that the bride is wearing such items in church demonstrates her willingness to sin, now and in the future. Now you may feel I’m being flippant, but I’m not – I want to know why you would pick up on one aspect of biblical teaching and uphold it as a matter of principle and yet ignore other aspects.

@meiosis was it in the new testament?

@noly We’ve been here before. Jesus specifically states that ALL the old laws are valid until the end of time. So where in the bible a particular law is written is, in Jesus’ view, irrelevant. Why do you want to cherry pick some aspects of the bible and ignore other, despite Jesus’ own words telling you that they’re all still valid?

In India a boy married a dog recently with full Hindu religious ritual.
Surely two consenting adult humans should be able to marry with all the religious trimmings to observe a social rite of passage with their loved ones.

@meiosis As christians we are bound to the New Testament and use it for authority..

@noly And it is in the New Testatment that Jesus states that ALL the old laws from the Old Testament are still valid, until the end of time. There is no wiggle room. Turning up to get married in church wearing mixed-fibre clothes is wrong as reaffirmed in the New Testament, and a sign that no repentance of wearing such garments is being contemplated. Why get more agitated about homosexuality than mixed fibres?

So what inspires you the most is the hatred? Not the love thy neighbor, not the judge not lest ye be judged, but the judgmental, superior, bullshit hatred? If you think that you are loving me while telling me that who I love is a sin and I shouldn’t get to be treated as you are until I stop sinning, you got a twisted perception of “love”.

If you admit that you don’t understand it all, then why not simply go only for the love and tolerance parts and leave the judging up to people who know better than you (or even better, just leave it up to God)?

@noly, it’s charming to hear that you ignore all of the times Jesus says we should follow brutal Old Testament laws and only cherry-pick Bible verses that support your idea of peace and forgiveness….

…except when it comes to gays.

I guess “charming” isn’t exactly the word I’m looking for. “Intellectually dishonest” and “clearly homophobic” probably work better.

If a particular church doesn’t approve of marrying a gay couple, they can, as Nancy Reagan suggested, “just say no.” It is their prerogative, as the church is not necessarily open to just anyone. However, it would be a break from the way the early Church thought of these things. That would be their option as well: even the Church can evolve if it wants to.

@noly – Did you just change the title of this question from “Why do gay people want to get married in a church?”

to

“Why do gay people want to get married in a church whereas they have civil union?”
?

Let me answer that question with a question:

Why do African Americans want to go to white schools when they can have perfectly-fine schools for non-whites?

@SavoirFaire

Yes we have argued this before. Noting exceptions doesn’t however, change the rule. Marriage has been designed around the need for procreation. The marriage creates a family unit which is then treated as a single entity. That unit survives until the children grow and marry which then creates a new family unit which is in turn treated as a single entity. This progression has been driven by the need to procreate.

Last names have been used as a way to identify that new entity and community property has again been used to treat the family as a single entity. Now we find our selves in a situation where procreation is less important or even detrimental. World population is an issue. If we want to address that it would seem we’d be better served by discouraging marriage rather than incentivizing it. When the ‘Joint tax Return’ was enacted the birth rate actually went up.

There are some fairly compelling arguments that we should revert to a system where we treat everyone as individuals rather then the family unit as the entity for taxing and legal issues. So the question becomes should we promote an expansion of a system to areas where it doesn’t pertain or eliminate it because it generally no longer serves the purpose.

@MyNewtBoobs @Qingu I could list you all verses in the bible that implied that the new testament overruled the old one but that’s not the point. My understanding of the bible is that one of its greatest purpose was to bring people together by promoting peace and avoid conflicts and destruction. I guess if you had to be the only man on earth, the bible would be less relevant. So it wont promote anything that could bring us to our destruction or extinction. I think it’s clear. Sexual acts, by their nature, are divinely intended to be procreative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.
@tom I don’t see what is your point? This a matter of state.

@Jaxk, “marriage has been designed around the need for procreation”

When, and by whom? The earliest laws we have (Code of Hammurabi) don’t mention this. They do portray marriage as an economic contract.

Also, if the purpose of marriage is to regulate procreation, do you think infertile people—or people who do not wish to have children—should be allowed to be married?

@noly, no you couldn’t because there are no such Bible verses. And what’s more, Jesus explicitly says he has “not come to abolish the OT but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17). You just contradicted your savior word-for-word.

And your logic makes no sense whatsoever. You are against homosexuality because it brings about the destruction/extinction of humanity. Walk me through your logic here.

1. Humans need to procreate to avoid extinction.
2. Homosexuals don’t procreate.
3. Therefore, if gays can marry, humanity will go extinct.

I mean, maybe I’m missing a step somewhere. Help me out.

@Qingu yes, I think you re intentionaly missing a step and misinterpretating what I said.

@noly

“Sexual acts, by their nature, are divinely intended to be procreative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.”

What about infertile couples?

What about elderly couples?

What about couples who carry a genetic disease that would be fatal to any child they had and so choose to have no children?

What about couples that choose not to have children for some other reason?

Are they also all prohibited from marrying? If not, why not?

@noly

Oh, and-

“Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. ”

Whose natural law? All those animals that naturally engage in homosexual acts would tend to disagree with you…

“They say “No homo!” I say “No, homophobe,
Get it straight – it’s in the chromosomes”
They say “But my religion says it’s a sin”
I say “Sell your daughter into slavery then”
They say “It’s unnatural, it makes me uneasy”
I say “Actually it’s found in four-hundred species ”

Baba Brinkman
The Evolution of Gayness

@noly: ”@tom I don’t see what is your point? This a matter of state.”

I am assuming a bunch here, and I apologize if I got it wrong….

I am assuming you are claiming that civil unions are sufficient. We should have states that recognize same-sex marriage and those that recognize only same-sex civil union.

I was just referring to the separate-but-equal crap (civil rights in the US). If you feel that the state should do away with issuing marriage certificates, and call them “civil-union” certificates, then go for it. Right now, however, we have something called “marriage”. When my then fiance and I walked into the town hall to get our paperwork, it was called “marriage”. Fortunately, I live in Massachusetts where we have colleges and such. The old married same-sex couples can now have the same rights as me and be not be slapped with some bullshit “civil union” label.

@noly then explain to me what I’m missing, please.

@Jaxk It is true that there is an argument to maybe get rid of civil marriage altogether and treat everyone as individuals. Except that in America couples continue to act as one many times. One salary, or ignore whose name is on property or automobiles. I think every car is in my husband’s name right now in our marriage. In marriage we can let go of some of the details, split up the burdens of every day life, and still be protected by law. I like it like that. We continue to couple up as a society, so legal marriage is still practical. Statistics show, or at least 15 years ago, that married people tend to be wealthier and happier. And the wealth was not old wealth, they were looking at building wealth.

@crisw sexual acts, by their nature, intended to be procreative. This is the reason why this union between a man and a woman is so important. We can be limited by nature in case we are infertile, elderly, sick or flawed but sexual act is the way God has chosen to give us life.If you inherit a gift and don’t want to use it or can’t use it for some reason dosent change the reason why Christians celebrate marriage.If at some point in time everybody had to be gay we wouldnt be here today.
@tom_g Gay should have the same rights as other citizen and I don’t mind if lawmakers want to call “civil union” marriage.But i understand why the church doesnt promote it.
@ I said many times why christians celebrate mariage. It has nothing to do with two beings loving each other or teaming up for some financial reasons. It’s where the gift of life happens. So do you get my point?

@Qingu ,sorry I forgot to mention you but my last comment was for you.

@noly, here is where your argument gets a little loony:

If at some point in time everybody had to be gay we wouldnt be here today.

Can you explain what this has to do with anything? If at some point everyone had to be infertile, or everyone decided not to have children, we wouldn’t be here today either. And yet you’re okay with infertile people and childless couples getting married.

@noly

You didn’t really answer my question.

“sexual acts, by their nature, intended to be procreative.”

Says who? Again, why do animals- including humans!- engage in tons and tons of non-procreative sex? How, exactly, do you explain this?

“We can be limited by nature in case we are infertile, elderly, sick or flawed…”

So do you think homosexuality is a choice? If so, why do you think this when all scientific evidence shows otherwise (did you choose to be heterosexual? Could you choose to be gay?)? If not, what is different about the infertile and the elderly versus gay people?

@noly I am confused by your answer. So now you are ok if we have legal marriage? Just you want the church to not perform gay marriages? Can you clarify.

@Qingu ,As christians we have beliefs,we have traditions and celebrations. We celebrate the gift of life, and this sacred union will make it happen.If this gift was taken away from us we would go extinct.We have no reason to celebrate gay mariage because no matter what it wont happen there.
@crisw I don’t believe homosexuality is a choice.As i said nature is not perfect and we pray for infertiles to have kids one day because we believe in miracles and even for eldery if they choose to have one.But we can’t applied this to gay when we know such event is impossible as a man never bore a baby.He wasnt designed to do so.And the same for a woman who need to unite with another man.
@jleslie I have always been ok with gay people having the same rights as other citizen of the state.

Likewise you have no reason to celebreate the marriage of an infertile couple.

So again: what’s your point?

If I understand your argument, you support infertile marriage because you believe that if you pray hard enough, Jesus will magically make one of them fertile and thus make their marriage worthwhile.

@ Yes that’s what we call faith.

But more importantly than that: you’re dodging the previous question.

What does whether or not gays getting married have to do with “guarding against extinction”? Yes, gays don’t have kids. Allowing gays to marry will not change the total number of children that are produced in the world. It will have no effect whatsoever on our extinction. Right?

Maybe if you pray hard enough, Jesus will make a gay man get pregnant. It could happen. Why don’t you have that much faith?

@noly – I have been attempting to follow this and I’m a bit confused with your position. It appears to be inconsistent. You “have always been ok with gay people having the same rights as other citizen[s] of the state”? Then what is driving this debate/question? Are you still wondering why gay xians would want to marry in a church? Are you more aware now there are 2 separate issues: gay rights, and the movement within a church by gay xians to change the church?
Where are you right now?

Getting married would appear to be a right. I’m not sure that getting married in a church is a right.
A rite, maybe, but not a right.

@noly What about a woman who has had a hysterectomy., who has zero chance of ever bearing a child. Is her marriage not worthy of celebration? As no amount of prayer will allow her to become pregnant, her marriage is presumably worthless

@Qingu i explained my point many times but you keep on asking the same thing. I guess making the month of september a holy month because most of people are born in september will not affect christians. There are so many things we could do to accomadate other people that will not change the natural order of things. But we wont do it as our beliefs are quite clear on such a topic.Unfortunately there is no mentions in the bible of a man getting pregnant. If it had ever happen, i would have prayed for them to bear a child. But there are mentions of men being sick and healed.
@meiosis As Christians, we will pray for that. I can ask God to heal a woman who cant give birth but i cant ask him to be greater than himself or pray so a man can give birth as we all know how God has decided to make it happen.

@noly Still confused. So you are ok with gay marriage under the law. Forget the civil union bullshit. Right?

@JLeslie – I can’t seem to figure out what his position(s) are right now. He doesn’t seem to want to summarize this. I did ask a few posts ago. All I see are seemingly-unrelated comments about the bible not talking about male pregnancy.

I guess some things are truly beyond Yahweh’s power. Just as Yahweh couldn’t seem to win a battle against a plains tribe because they had iron chariots, I guess he also doesn’t have quite enough magic juice to make a dude pregnant. Perhaps if you prayed to Allah? I hear he has more magic power since he didn’t have to give a third to his ungrateful kid.

Also, how do you feel about lesbian couples getting married? After all, either person could get pregnant (just make a trip to a sperm bank).

@tom_g Ok, thanks for being confused to lol :). He stated he is for equal rights for all citizens, to me that evades the direct question. During segregation the whites in the south in favor of separate, but equal, might have answered the same way. And people still think civil union is equal to marriage, so the OP os not answering the direct question yet.

And, this thread has meandered around talking about religion and legal marriage, and I think the two are very separate.

At this point I don’t know why “we” ever bother to argue with Christians who are like this, it is so tiring. We have some wonderful Christians on fluther whom I do not agree with their beliefs, although I am interested to learn about their faith, and they understand people have different beliefs, and they understand the greatness of America began with religious freedom and equality. They always give me hope.

@Qingu Why not asked God to give me superpowers or make my dog a shape shifter? You should ask him to make you omniscient so you will know some of your sarcastic statements could be perceived as disrespectful.
@JLeslie @tom_g I’m sorry if my statements were confusing and i hope i ll do better to answer your question.I do believe that religion and state matter should be separate.And i believe that gay people shouldnt be discriminated by the law. I asked my question because i feel a bit confused because some still want to be married by a priest when they know that the chruch doesnt promote homosexuality.I meant that i would fight for gays right but cant go against the bible, But unfortunately when you make those statements some view you as homophobics or a gay rights opponent.I lived in Paris for sometimes and the mayor was gay and very popular and even a serious contender dor the presidency see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Delano%C3%AB#Personal_life and was very happy to see that happening. I may be wrong and im here to learn from other people because my priest will not answer some of my questions. I ll be back in 2 hours and will be happy to continue this conversation .

@noly What Catholics are asking for Priests to marry them? I don’t know anything about this. Your link did not work for me by the way.

@JLeslie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Delanoë

@Qingu

Actually many marriages are designed around the tax law. Whether to marry or just live together can be a financial decision based on taxes. Whether people use the current law to their advantage has little to do with the intention of the law.

@JLeslie

I would say the same thing to you. The fact that we use the law to our advantage little to do with the intention. It goes back to why would we provide a tax break for marriage but not for living together. The same shared expenses apply in either case. I’ve seen the argument about married couple earn more but if I recall the argument correctly it had to do with sympathy for a man with a family.

@Jaxk Oh, I think I would totally go along with you concerning the tax breaks. I am not even sure I am in favor of tax breaks for children. I was referring to the social benefits of married people we have observed as a society, and the law protecting both people in the marriage.

@noly “its not about what people believe, its about what our religion teaches us.”
Who “our” ? Yours?

I still can’t get past the supposition that gays have access to civil unions but somehow want more, as the sanctity of a religious service? 1) Gays don’t have access to civil unions, and 2) If you have a religious service without a marriage license, you’re not married. Religious services are a personal preference. You need a legally recognized person to pronounce you married. This can be a minister, judge, justice of the peace or a ship’s captain. Of the 4, only 1 has anything to do with religion.

@BarnacleBill Isn’t it the actual signing of the marriage license that makes it official in all instances, not the part where someone (minister, judge, justice of the peace, ship captain, legally ordained friend) says “I now pronounce you blank and blank”?

You have to sign the license in front of a person who makes you swear to not abandon the person financially. You sign the license, the maid of honor and best man witness your signature. It takes a court decree to get out of it.

The couple is married at the moment of the pronouncement. That’s the key moment of the commitment ritual. The couple haven’t just made sweet talk to each other, they did it in front of witnesses. The moment of pronouncement completes the cycle that the couple witness the community and their minister acknowledging their promises.

The commitment ritual often includes proclamations to the deities shared by their community. If you share deities and share a community, you might as well do your commitment ritual in your church, they’re made for all of that.

The signatures document for the government’s purposes that people witnessed the ritual has take place, and that the couple have committed to belong to each other as understood in the laws as “marriage” with all its attendant rights and obligations.

The problem in America is we gave the power to complete the process to clergy. In other countries clergy don’t do it, the civil marriage is competely separate.

Why do heterosexual people want to get married in a church when they can have civil union outside a church?

@Jaxk Marriage has not been designed around procreation. Historically, marriage has created a domestic partnership that involved sexual access rights. In the US, you cannot get a divorce because your partner is infertile. You can get a divorce, however, if your partner is incapable of having sex or refuses to do so.

The last names bit is also incorrect. Historically, last names have varied with culture. In some societies, sons and daughters of the same parents do not share the same last name with either their siblings or their parents. In other cultures, siblings will all be born with the same last name, but they will share it with only one parent (because they are from a culture where people do not change their surnames upon getting married). In the US, there are various options for a child’s last name. Laws vary, but most places allow a mother to give her child her maiden name, her married name, or the father’s name (which may overlap with the married name).

thanks for your answers.

@Jaxk Many gays have families these days— and sometimes genetic families [with sperm/egg donations]—marriage should include those families.
Also, you failed to note the real importance of marriage. Inheritance. To accrue and pass on wealth and power to legitimate heirs.

Long before marriage was about love, marriage was about money. It still is—“Two can live as cheaply as one” [and save money]—health insurance benefits, survivor benefits, as well as children.

I think the question is not about the civil institution defined in the laws, I think @anartist ‘s notes good reasons to have civil resoutces with such essential impact on people’s lives to be available to everyone who’s qualified, i.e. not flying solo, especially kids in wonderful alternative structured families who can get disenfranchised.

But the question is about the ceremony we call marriage in a church, which has an impact on the couple’s lives that is distinct from the civil institution. If the couple is recognized and welcomed in a church congregation, I don’t see a reason to deny them any the congregation’s sacraments.

If they aren’t welcome in a congregation and the question is why would someone want to get married somewhere they aren’t welcomed, that is valid. You might wonder about the couple’s appetite for pain.

But the congregation might even let ‘them’ hang around, maybe in the choir, to show “tolerance” but they choose to exclude them from important life institutions for whatever reasons. So perhaps we arrive at a question of why they aren’t welcomed fully, if that’s basically the case. As Christians I believe folks are obliged to do cherish all the souls around them with compassion. You wouldn’t be obliged to like them but you would be to respect them.

Love your neighbor as you’d like to be treated is on Jesus’s ToDo list. In fact he would insist go all out beyond that with the compassion thing, and support their souls with no reservation.
And he’s right, it’s better for everyone involved, even thinking of it from purely selfish intents, for everyone around to be as happy as possible.

@dabbler Yes, the question is about getting married in a church. That much, I think, is clear. The answer to why a gay couple might want to get married in a church is also clear: if they are religious people, they have the same reasons as straight people for getting married in a church. It seems that @noly is presuming that there is no interpretation of Christianity on which being gay is acceptable. This is untrue, and there are many churches that both accept and marry same-sex couples.

Some other churches may find that offensive, but they’ll need to take that up with the clergy members of the offending church rather than the couples who got married there. Then again, some churches think it’s wrong to baptize infants, while others think it’s wrong not to baptize infants—yet somehow, no one ever gets offended over this (and no one asks why infants would want to get baptized at their age).

Presumably, a same-sex couple would only want to get married in a church that accepted them as people and as a couple. So when you ask why someone would want to get married somewhere they aren’t welcome, my question in return is “are there any examples of this?” This is why the point of asking this question remains unclear to me. I do not know what actions by which people confused @noly so much that he had to ask about their motives.

@noly I think the point you are missing is that not everyone believes the same things as you. It honestly doesn’t matter if they are a majority or not. Blacks were once denied rights and they are a minority, and we see (and agree with) how that turned out. Why can’t Christians like you just keep your beliefs out of other people’s lives. You are forgetting that this country is founded on the belief that any one group of people can’t deny another group rights just because of their race, color, sex, and yes, even sexual orientation.