what do you of public display of affection between same sex relationships in church? and same sex marriages?
550952
who cares i try not to judge others and church is all about money.  as for same sex marriages why did the pres. ban that because he is a babling idoit i say if you love some one and want to make that decision you should be able to. i thought this was a free country
1078447
I have no earthly idea why people keep insisting on defining marriage!  Why is this such a big deal?  There are so many things that are truly imporant that we can put our energy into solving rather than someones desire to marry someone of the same sex.  You certainly wont stop them from having a relationship.  What are you doing that the government will decide to ban next?  Frankly, whatever goes on in my underpants is none of the governments business.  All of those who are in support of BIG GOVERNMENT telling you how to conduct your private lives had better watch out, you may get more than what you bargained for.  Obviously, since this question keeps coming up over and over, there are more people out there that have little else to do but worry about this nonsense.  If this has to do with Christianity, divorce, partner swapping, adultery, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, etc. have already made a mockery of marriage so who cares if homosexuals want a part of it.  I think there is something in that big Bible that you all are thumping that says that we have all have free will....Please stop trying to legislate morality and personal decision that have absolutly nothing to do with you.  If you dont want to marry someone of the same sex, DONT.  And no, I am not gay, I am just not so hypocritical that I feel I need to impose my lifestyle on others.
1144778
yes it should be legal, the people that are afriad i twill affect their relationshiops don't have strong relations and fear losing their loved one. RIGHT TO PRESUE HAPPYNESS. Marriage is about love not religon creed or sexual orentition, if you really wanan look at it religously I'd guess that jesus would have hung out wiht the gay guy or girl or the bisexual just like he hung out with the prostitute and blind guy and the guy with lepracy, if theres anyone  who he wouldnt hang with its the guy saying no these arnt people and that they cant live happily and love who they want  to. I'm not even religous I just like to give what i think even catholics and cristians can think cuse I used to be one till I decide I was bisexual ... and I think the only thing needed for marriage is LOVE.
848695
Two people who willfully choose to join themselves in a committed relationship and who plan to stick it out through the good times and bad times, come hell or high water.\n\nSince this is the LGBT forum, I will add this. I am really angry about all the hoopla about gay marriage going on in my country (US) right now. So many people keep saying marriage is a one man + one woman only affair, but the fact of the matter is that marriage, at least in the US, is a LEGAL MATTER. If you choose to have a religious ceremony, it isn't legal until you get the marriage license issued by the state. Since it's a legal contract, I find it obscene that anyone wants to legislate that it can only be between a man and a woman. If marriage was simply a religious affair, then I would say it was up to the religious leaders of that faith to say who can and who cannot be married, but I find it repugnant that some people are not allowed to enter into a binding legal agreement simply because they happen to be of the same sex. The simple fact that I have two X chromosomes, and my partner is an XY gives us, automatically, all sorts of rights and privileges that are denied to other couples because they are the same sex. I am weary of people saying, "well, they can go to an attorney and make sure that they inherit each other's stuff, and they can go to an attorney and legally adopt each other's kids, and they can go to an attorney and give each other medical power of attorney, and they can go to an attorney..." because all of that stuff was just given to me and my husband when we married. No one in a committed relationship should have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees getting their ducks in a row so that when something happens to one of them they can end up with a rotten judge in court and have it overturned in favor of "next of kin", who are, sadly, not always mindful of what their dearly departed would have wanted. It's all just offensive to me. \n\nOkay, sorry for the outburst. I will put my soapbox away now.
1109745
first off, the law should allow homosexual couples to get married   \n\ni think a marraige service should be offered by the government in the case that a church refuses to marry a homosexual couple.  everyone deserves the benifits (misery) of marriage.\n\ni think the church should be more accepting because isnt that what they stand for?  love and happiness?  does it really matter in what form that happiness and love come in?\n\n and if the church wont marry them then a government sponsered program can do it for them.  thats just how i think...fair and equal.
134399
Absoluting nothing!  Except that would treaten the "right" of religous fundimentalists to force their religion on others.  Of course, they'd probably say they are saving them for eternal damnation, but it amounts to the same thing.\n\n________\n>>>Remember, the concept of "maariage" while having many \n>>>legal and govermental ramifications, is in fact a rligious \n>>>institution.\n\nI don't think it's right to force religious institutions to preform same sex marriages.  And I don't see anyone advocating it.  However, I think it's just as wrong to tell them they're not allowed, or for the state to refuse to recognize the validity of same sex marriages that are sanctioned by a religions institution.  Many churches do not allow same sex marriage, but some do, and those that do should be afforded the same rights as those that do not.  In case you haven't noticed, the Catholic Church is not the only religious organization out there.\n\nIn a legal sense, marriage is not a religious institution.  A couple can be married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace without the involvment of any religious establishment whatsoever.  All we ask is that same sex couples be afforded the same rights under the law as heterosexual ones.  That gay couples be permitted to obtain a marriage license and be married by a justice of the peace or by an religious authority willing to preform the ceremony.  A Church already has the right to choose who they will and will not marry without explaination, and I see no reason why that needs to change.  The government, however, does not have the same right of discrimination that is afforded the Church.
1064179
god and your church if your religious.\n\nfriends, family.
480344
Hugging is perfectly fine, just as long as you don't take it any further. Kissing is also fine, as long as it doesn't lead to anything else. As you are a Christian, you should always wait until you get married before going 'all the way'.
510879
Marriage is also a ritual of religion or faith or way of life
380234
public display of affection... ypu know hugging, kissing playing grab a** :)
1021712
I like seeing people share affection . A young couple newly in love and older couple holding hands . There is a fine line though between showing affection and making out in public LOL./ At a funeral, holding hands or hugging the bereaved seems appropriate to me. After all, you are there for the living, and giving a hug etc to show you care  to me seems just fine. I received alot of hugs and kisses at my parents funeral party. There was not one thing wrong with it as far as I was concerned, Now, grabbin someones butt while your huggin them goes beyond PDA , that my dear is lusting!
278405
:}\na marriage between Christians who each love and honor God more than they do each other\n\nA marriage characterized by mutual love and support of each other.\nA man and wife drawn nearer to each other by each being drawn near to God.\n\nI would expect to see family devotionals and joint involvement with their church family, \nI would expect to find biblical principals taught to their children and a life governed by Biblical principals\n\nI think I would find a kind of Agape love rarely existent between humans.\n\nOh, I think problems might still occur but i think forgiveness would reign supreme\n\nI believe each would seek the others good. and perceive the other more highly than themselves\n\nthere would be little competition and allot of cooperation.
514010
does it really?\n\nthink over it ....\n\nwhat is marriage all about?\n\nto me it is a proclamation of mutual love and committment.\nit is what binds two hearts and souls in love in a committment wherein they are loyal to each other and help each other in enhancing their lives and caring for each other in a special way. it is also an assurance to be with the one you love in joy and in pain. in health and in sickness. it is a bond that helps you feel belonged and know that you are loved no matter what. it is allowing someone to witness your entire life, second by second, minute by minute, and you get to do that too.\n\nand in all of what i have said above, correct me if i am wrong, where does the word, sex or gender come???\n\nif it doesn't then we can safely conclude that MARRIAGE does not harm anyone, and as a by-product of this conclusion even GAY marriages can't harm anyone.
979528
It is not Christian marriage we are fighting over it is civil marriage.\n\nI can already get married in my church and that's great....just doesn't carry any legal weight.
1151448
I think that same sex marriage should be allowed - for a variety of reasons - however I do not believe that any church should be forced into sanctioning it if it goes against what they truly believe in from their perception of the bible or?.  Understanding all of that, I really do not believe that this is what the majority of people who want to be in a same sex marriage are asking for..\n\nPart of the reason that I believe we should allow this is:\n#1 - No matter what one feels on this subject - we need to realize that there are children involved in many cases.  Because those who are currently living together are not entitled to one another's benefits - those children within this family  unit are also not entitled to the other care giver's dental, medical etc.  Why make them less fortunate that others who are living common-law ie: heterosexuals?   I find this very discriminatory.\n\nAlso -\n#2 - what if one of the couple dies?  Perhaps there is a another party also dependent on these two for support - like an older parent?  The one left will not be entitled to any portion of pensions etc. from the one who has died - which could have a devastating effect on the ones left behind.\n\nI don't think that people realize or take the time to think past the sexuality of the couple. \n\nAnd besides - do people stop and ask you what you do in your bedroom??  I don't think so - so why do we always equate same sex partnerships with only sex.  I believe that this shows our narrow mindedness... think beyond the general concept and try and grasp the whole picture!!\n\np.s.  am married with children - but feel strongly about this subject...
543088
I particularly like "Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe" by John Boswell and it would be neat to see his evidence online, perhaps in timeline form.  Gay marriage is a hot topic, and those of us who do history know that this whole "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" thing is total crap.  Plenty of societies have had, allowed, and encouraged same sex marriage, like Native American societies.  I would like to see more about that online.
738876
There isn't a real one. One of the arguments made by opponents of same sex marriage is that allowing it could open the door for other things, such as acceptance of polygamy. It's baseless and primarily a tactic by the morality police (Conservative Christians) to keep people under their reigns.