No, not in Russia. At least in today's Russia. It will only enrage people even more. Now some persons being known as gays are fired, treatened, harassed or even murdered. First place that will registaer a same-sex marriage will be burnt to ashes and first same-sex couple will be killed on the spot or at least arrested. 

 

It may be good in some other countries but not here and not today.

Okay. I don't understand why I shouldn't voice my religious beliefs on this topic. I suppose I really don't have a choice coming from a moderator. (No disrespect intended) Out of common sense, I still do not believe it is right. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

 

It's not that you shouldn't, it's just a logical fallacy. And that is not an order from Jay, he is merely expressing his opinion about how debates should be done.

Okay. I don't understand why I shouldn't voice my religious beliefs on this topic. I suppose I really don't have a choice coming from a moderator. (No disrespect intended) Out of common sense, I still do not believe it is right. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Oh, I was being philosophical. Technically it's an unsound argument. Your more than welcome to your view and I wasn't saying otherwise. I also think marriage should be between a man and woman, just as the word is defined. I don't believe in changing the definition of a word to suit gay rights.

I don't mind LGBT people having their own equal thing, it just shouldn't be called marriage imo.

We had the same debate some months ago, I don't think there's too much else to discuss in that regard: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

I get really confused over this topic, but currently, I'm all for it, from an atheist (or sort of 'confused' religion wise). If someone who is gay wants to get married, why not? But in another way, I suppose that religions shouldn't be forced to accept gay marriage if they don't want to. I basically follow the rule 'if you're happy, i'm happy for you'.

I agree with Jay - I am against same sex marriages, but I see no problem with civil agreements that give the same privileges as a marriage. A marriage is a religious thing, and Church is against same sex ones, so why force them when we can have unions and partnerships?

 

Im all for same sex marriages. My religion is against it as well but my religion also says that God is the judge and I am not to judge my neighbor so who am I to keep someone from doing something they want to do. 

 

Not everyone is religious or follows the Bible (or any other religious text). So I cant say that just because I follow religion you should too. It just isn't right. 

We had the same debate some months ago, I don't think there's too much else to discuss in that regard: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

I believe OP is asking a more precise question than an opinion on same-sex marriages in general.

 

 

Do you think that, in Russia's case, gay marriage shouldn't be outlawed and discouraged, but rather welcomed as equally?

However, I'd say that this topic will be different from the discussion in general only if many people were aware of Russia's political issues Otherwise it's a general dispute again.

Oh, I was being philosophical. Technically it's an unsound argument. Your more than welcome to your view and I wasn't saying otherwise. I also think marriage should be between a man and woman, just as the word is defined. I don't believe in changing the definition of a word to suit gay rights.

I don't mind LGBT people having their own equal thing, it just shouldn't be called marriage imo.

Okay, glad we are on the same page. Like I said, no disrespect was intended.

 

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by 1ian20

I really like the responses from the forum on this topic, nobody has gone "omg you're so wrong hurr durr repent your sins" and the opposing views have also not gone "omg religion is stupid blah blah" good work guys :)

 

I've picked a couple of points I read which I want to add my views to..

I agree with Jay - I am against same sex marriages, but I see no problem with civil agreements that give the same privileges as a marriage. A marriage is a religious thing, and Church is against same sex ones, so why force them when we can have unions and partnerships?

I agree to an extent with these divisions, marriage was and always has been a religious event under the eyes of that religions particular deity. However, as a none religious person I look more at the changes in politics, and the world in general.

 

SOME religious people (I respect they do not represent the religion as a whole) argue gay marriage is completely wrong and against god's will. However if you look at some religious practises it was also wrong to get a divorce and re-marry in England until Henry VIII reformed the English church. But now we have solicitors who actively practise in matrimonial divorce regardless of the original belief. So why should gay marriage be so different? We change with the time.

 

Coming from a religious family, I disagree with it. It states in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

I love this comment, and a huge amount of respect to you. I've seen so many people try to force religion down your throat I lost all respect for anyone religious. I am actually sick of people saying "You are wrong, god is right, become a [religious belief here] and forever be right" Well how about no, religion was a belief, a faith people chose to follow because it gave them answers and comfort. If I don't get that same comfort why should I convert to a religion? It should be a choice.

 

This is why I love your comment, you say "I disagree with it" rather than "It is wrong, fact".

 

Down to my personal opinion on the matter, I am a firm believer of changing with time, we cannot spend forever following old beliefs or continuing along paths once followed, if we did the Earth would be 100% f****d already. We thought the motorised car was a fantastic thing, but suddenly now we see what the effects are we're pushing people to lift share, ride a bike or even walk. Why did we make that change? Because we saw it necessary.

 

I am therefore, entirely for gay marriage. If you want to do something why should the world say otherwise? It is none of your business if I chose tomorrow to marry another man, that is my personal choice. (FTR I won't be marrying a man tomorrow as it is not my personal preference)

i believe that as long as they're not all in your face about it, as if they're trying to show off or look for attention, let them be. if they mind their own business, why is it anyone else's business? leave em the f alone and grow up. 

 

but being that im not religious in any way shape or form, that could be why i feel like that . i do respect why Jay and others opinion and acnoledge that it is a religious believe. but i do think in a changing world you have to be open minded.

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by BrKapp

It's so ridiculous, the world used to be ruled by religion. Hence being gay was wrong. Now Religion no longer rules society to the extent it did once. Of all places I would have thought the church would be the place they love you no matter what and support people who are in love. Who cares about the sex?

 

 

Basically, this shouldn't be considered morally wrong. It's marriage ,male female who cares. 

 

 

It's so ridiculous, the world used to be ruled by religion. Hence being gay was wrong. Now Religion no longer rules society to the extent it did once. Of all places I would have thought the church would be the place they love you no matter what and support people who are in love. Who cares about the sex?

 

 

Basically, this shouldn't be considered morally wrong. It's marriage ,male female who cares. 

I understand where you are coming from but isn't a Church supposed to follow God's word? Yes. And God said that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, that wouldn't make sense in my eyes. Just my opinion.

 

Despite being British, I actually happen to agree with American constitutionalists on the role of religion in society. That whilst people should have the freedom to worship as they please, it shouldn't become institutionalised i.e. no faith schools, no state religion.

 

Unfortunately, there's a tradition of the monarch being the head of the Church of England and as such religion has been institutionalised, which is fine. I do, however, feel that an institution, particularly one with some form of "public authority" as religious ones do, has an obligation to act in accordance with the various conventions on human rights.

 

The European Convention in particular, which outlaws discrimination of any kind by public authority i.e. both types of partnership have to be legally recognised.

 

On the issue of "same sex marriage" an ultimatum should have been issued - either offer the sanctimony of marriage to everyone or become de-institutionalised, including removal of bishops in the House of Lords.

 

I mean you could expand this out. There's a lot of religious tension in the UK, Muslims appear to want to become institutionalised, why not offer them it? Of course, in turn you could get them to turn around views on women, how they teach the quaran to young children (rocking back and fourth, is questionable) and of course the issue of "same sex marriage".

 

A more extreme version touted by some libertarians I know of is that public worship of religion (i.e. churches) should have certain conditions attached (i.e. recognising "same sex marriage", offering it) and if the conditions aren't met the places of worship should be closed and worship only allowed privately, so that there's no bearing on public life.  

 

I suppose the fundamental point I am making is that public authority comes with responsibility, one of those being equal treatment. Which brings to bear why civil partnerships aren't available to heterosexual couples?

 

 

Regards,

Hench

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by Hench

If it's OK for two men to get married, then it's ok for someone to marry a goat.  It should be OK to marry a child then as well or to marry a loved dog.  Why not?  It's all good dude!

 

First off; if you believe in the Bible, God and Jesus, you have to accept what the Bible tells you.  You can't pick and choose what to accept, because the Bible is the word of God, if you are a true Christian.  So to say it shouldn't be morally wrong is plane ignorance because that is impossible.  Some people, many people live by a moral code of ethics and understand the meaning of morality, in it's truest sense.

 

You can choose to ignore it and belittle it and blaspheme all you want.  But it IS morally wrong as it should be, if you (general you) have  a moral compass that is.  Two men are not supposed to have sexual relations period and is a biological fact.   It's morally reprehensibly to most reasonable people, as two men can't produce a child (nor two women) and is such a repugnant act in itself.  Not the true meaning of marriage and it's origins if you ask me or any historian, or religious scholar.

 

Now, I'm Roman Catholic, but I do not care if two guys are together.  I don't even care if they get married as it matters not one bit to me.  But I will not be forced to accept it as moral behavior by any means, nor will I be forced to accommodate those who have so little regard for others and who have not thought about marriage and what it truly means for more than 30-seconds. 

 

Why is marriage considered an institution then?  It's being turned into a mockery.

 

DrDetroit

 

 

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by drdetroit

Where's the negative rep button when you need it?

Your argument is very cogent.  Thanks for the words of wisdom pal.

 

DrDetroit

I'm all for the decentralization of marriage (no state recognized marriage, period.)

That way, those who choose when to be religious get to keep their precious "marriage", and those who want to live outside the means of what some book with far too many translations and interpretations can say they're married too!

 

 

If it's OK for two men to get married, then it's ok for someone to marry a goat.  It should be OK to marry a child then as well or to marry a loved dog.  Why not?  It's all good dude!

I love reading these slippery slopes.

It will be hard to get the court to understand how the goat consents though. We also have the involving of age of consent. Forced marriages like that are sorta frowned upon in countries like the United States, and a sheer majority of  EU states. So don't worry, if same-sex marriage is state-recognized, I can say with a probability of 1 that we will not see goats and infants being married to a lunatic, just simply due to what consent is defined.

Edited February 8, 201412 yr by Leonov

It will be hard to get the court to understand how the goat consents though. We also have the involving of age of consent. Forced marriages like that are sorta frowned upon in countries like the United States, and a sheer majority of  EU states. So don't worry, if same-sex marriage is state-recognized, I can say with a probability of 1 that we will not see goats and infants being married to a lunatic, just simply due to what consent is defined.

 

Yes, gay marriage is a slippery slope. Personally, I don't really care either way...maybe I should though.  I do have my opinion's on the matter though.  

 

But if you follow the logical process, then why can't someone marry their cat or dog?  If two guys can get married simply because they love each other, then the same logic follows; does it not?

 

DrDetroit

Yes, gay marriage is a slippery slope. Personally, I don't really care either way...maybe I should though.  I do have my opinion's on the matter though.  

 

But if you follow the logical process, then why can't someone marry their cat or dog?  If two guys can get married simply because they love each other, then the same logic follows; does it not?

 

DrDetroit

I'm sorry, but your logical process is illogical, especially when you follow what I've said.

See, that's exactly what I'm saying. A cat or dog is incapable of consenting from a legal standpoint. Do you know how to speak the language of cats or dogs fluently? If so, you've just made a huge breakthrough in communication science! And even then, since concepts like Dog years and such are more or less made up concept, law of age of consent still stands, and most of these animals don't live long enough to get to that point. Age of Consent follows the idea that the person is really old enough to make the decision for themselves. This is usually why in the US, you don't see very many state recognized marriages between seven year olds as well, as well as 13 year olds marrying men 3 or 4 times their age.

So basically, if it involves two consenting adults. It doesn't bother me, and shouldn't bother anyone of logic really. Last I checked, that gay couple are considered by law to be capable of giving consent. A Dog or a person under the age of consent, not so much.

If it's OK for two men to get married, then it's ok for someone to marry a goat.  It should be OK to marry a child then as well or to marry a loved dog.  Why not?  It's all good dude!

 

First off; if you believe in the Bible, God and Jesus, you have to accept what the Bible tells you.  You can't pick and choose what to accept, because the Bible is the word of God, if you are a true Christian.  So to say it shouldn't be morally wrong is plane ignorance because that is impossible.  Some people, many people live by a moral code of ethics and understand the meaning of morality, in it's truest sense.

 

 

Ok so if the bible is the word of God and you have to accept what the bible says I take you to the point which says you must love thy neighbour as thyself.

And if your neighbour happens to be gay and so chooses to marry another man what do you do then? Crucify him or carry on loving him? The bible says love him but yet everyone else says crucify because the bible also says crucify homosexuality. So which is correct?

 

 

So if you do happen to love thy neighbour as thyself, but you also hate homosexuality, surely you should also hate yourself too? Because if you don't also hate yourself you are not following the word of God.

 

 

Just some food for thought there.