A Question About Same Sex Marriage

[Windcaler]

First off I need to dispel the idea that just because you belong to a religion means that you must follow all those tenants. I was raised Catholic and I still follow many of the philosophical ideals of Catholic teachings like helping others when Im able to. I follow these teachings because I feel its the right thing to do, not because its in a book, and not because a priest told me to, and not because there's some promise that I'll get into heaven. Some people do believe what they believe purely because its written in a bible or purely because a priest says so but in my personal experience these people are far in the minority

That said lets talk about whats really going on here. United states citizens are born with the right to vote when they become of age but we the people are all different though often our beliefs align with others. When those beliefs align together social circles and even entire cultures like religions and political parties form. Even our love of video games has created such politically focused social groups like the Video game voters network. That all said, whats really going on here is American citizens are expressing themselves and for whatever reason (which may or may not be influnced by religious upbringing or conversion its impossible to prove one way or the other) over half the US population has said no, no gay marriage. In some cases I absolutely agree that their choice is made because of their religious beliefs but this is not the religion directly controlling our political structure. The Pope can stand at whatever balcony he wants and say whatever he wants but hes never going to convince every catholic that what he says is the undisputed truth. In fact he and I seem to disagree on quite a bit these days. The end result has been the unfortunate (and arguably illegal) segregation and discrimination of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender individuals because people (many who happen to belong to a religion), not religions themselves, say thats ok

Some people already made the argument that basicly people who belong to a religion shouldnt get to vote but if that were to happen we would just be trading one sort of discrimination for another (a much larger sort of discrimination too). That doesnt give liberty and freedom to all our citizens, its just going to start another revolution. Even if you could somehow take religion out of the equation people who dont like homosexuality would probably still think the same thing

I personally dont agree with any kind of discrimination despite my religious background and it is a fact that some denominations of christianity across the country openly accept these people as part of their scripture. There are other religions (the following examples are not accounting for smaller denominations of these religions, were talking generally here and going only by scripture) such as Islam also agree that it is wrong. Last I heard Hindu's were unsure where they stood as some scriptures say dont do it and others say everyone should do it. Then, in the case of Voodoo where everyone is accepted. While not a religion, there are societys in Papau New Geniu (and probably other places in the world) where a homosexual act is seen as a coming of age sort of situation.

So what can you do to change this? 1. Vote. Many people dont think their vote matters and while I would agree in huge races like the presidential race there are many local and state issues which you can influence. Gay marriage may be one of them. Obviously you arent old enough to vote yet so it may be time to start looking at the various parties and doing some self examination to understand where you stand on many political issues. That said, dont feel pressured to be part of a political party either, Ive been an independant going on 12 years and its served me just fine. 2. Learn what the arguments are against homosexuality and try to educate people in a calm and respectful manner. Keep in mind the more aggressive you are the more resistance you will get. One of my favorite commentators has a saying "its ok to not like things but dont be a dick about it" and thats doubly true for politics. People are much more receptive when you treat them like human beings and feel like you're listening to them and understand their point of view. Above all, never be intellectually dishonest though because if you say you have some statistic or have some proof to something you better be able to back that up. Also keep in mind that you just arent going to be able to convince everyone 3. Understand that effecting change isnt easy but it is worthwhile. We dont live in a utopian society, we live in a civilized one. Things arent perfect but they could sure be a lot worse off. Changing our society for the better is never easy and in some cases for gay marraige it may even be illegal (I say this because some state constitutions define marraige as only between 1 man and 1 woman). Still all laws can be amended and/or changed so its never a hopeless battle

 

[Angie7F]

1. America is a representative democracy where leaders are elected by voters.
2. A large proportion of voters subscribe to a religion with hostile attitudes towards homosexuality.
3. Representatives of those voters are required (democratically and practically) to represent those attitudes.
4. Laws are passed that are hostile towards homosexuality.

i guess this is probably the correct answer.
This is why I never thought that democracy is entirely correct.
If you are among the majority, it is the perfect solution, but if you are not, then you are screwed.

 

[Xanadu84]

The real solution is easy. Churches can do whatever they want in terms of marrying. Some churches marry gay couples, most don't. Let em. Meanwhile, the state can offer to allow 2 individuals to enter into a legally binding document that carries the rights and responsibilities we associate with marriage, called a Civil Union. It doesn't care about love of sex or whatever, it is a legal document. Problem solved.

I just wanted to make the garrage joke but okay.

Trying to sidestep the problem doesn't solve anything. The "MARRIAGE IS DEFINED AS..." nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the word "marriage". That is just a bizarre argument that bigots use because they don't want homosexuals to have the same rights that they have.

The word 'marriage' doesn't belong to the church and I see no reason why we should let them have it. Just because the duty of marrying people once fell on the church doesn't mean they own the word 'marriage' any more than they own the term 'school' just because it once fell on religious institutions to educate people. Furthermore, there is already something called a Civil Union in my country, and it is essentially a poor man's marriage, with only limited rights and privileges. It seems absurd to amend the law in order to remove the term marriage and change the meaning of a civil union in order to encompass all the rights that marriage had previously granted, when one could simply change a single phrase in the law to make marriage to mean a union between two consenting adults.

Once again, the semantics argument only exists to deflect and distract. It has nothing to do with the word itself. Words always change. The people who are currently chanting "Marrige is defined as a union between a man and a woman!!" wouldn't just take your suggestion lying down. They would just argue "Marriage is a century old tradition! You can't remove it from law!" and we're back to square one, where it has to be marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman.

The state shouldn't have anything to do with peoples romantic relationships. It is not their business, and implying that it does by addressing a term like marriage skirts too closely to mixing church and state. The state doesn't have an interest in relationships and sex, but it DOES have an interest in allowing its citizens to obtain certain rights and responsibilities. By doing this, you make the illegality of not offering the same rights to gay people as straight that much clearer. Offering civil unions to all people, but making the version for gay people weaker is a straightforward violation of the 14th amendment. And of course, churches and other private institutions are both free to not marry gay people, OR FREE TO DO SO. That religious, cultural battle can rage on as it likes, but it shouldn't be waged in a federal building. Applying a culturally and socially significant work like "Marriage" to a straightforward legal agreement is just asking for unnecessary trouble, and the state has no interest in any other aspect of a relationship between 2 consenting adults.

In other countries, even if they do not have the 14th Amendment, the moral principle behind them is still equally applicable.

 

[Xanadu84]

The real solution is easy. Churches can do whatever they want in terms of marrying. Some churches marry gay couples, most don't. Let em. Meanwhile, the state can offer to allow 2 individuals to enter into a legally binding document that carries the rights and responsibilities we associate with marriage, called a Civil Union. It doesn't care about love of sex or whatever, it is a legal document. Problem solved.

Problem not solved, actually. Under current laws Civil Unions are inferior to marriage, literally lacking hundreds of the benefits afforded via the contract of marriage. Until such a time that that changes, 'Civil Unions' are less a solution than a token gesture. And frankly I don't much see the point in making a duplicate legal status simply to preserve some people's sensibilities. If the state is to grant similar status, there's no reason to have separate terms in the first place.

Well yes, Civil Union laws are not as good as marriage, but that is because Civil Unions were written as being specifically for gay couples. Civil Unions needs to apply to ALL couples, and once that happens, then gay couples can't possibly have a inferior institution. And the state SHOULD call it Civil Unions, because the state has no interest in a tradition that deals with romance and sex, gay OR straight. The state shouldn't care if a gay OR straight couple wants to settle down and start a family, it only cares that 2 individuals wish to give legal consent to enter into a binding legal agreement. In that light, fighting for marriage is just fighting an unnecessary battle for an inferior use of semantics.

Of course, Ive accepted that that ship has probably sailed, and we will never see the day when straight people enter into civil unions for the states legal perspective, and marriage is used by private institutions only. It's too bad, but given that fact then yes, all homosexual people need the right to marry. It's not the most effective or logical way to level the playing field, but it is far more important that the field be leveled, and screw anyone who thinks that people should be treated differently based on their sexuality. I think that that's the one thing that we can all agree on.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The state shouldn't have anything to do with peoples romantic relationships. It is not their business, and implying that it does by addressing a term like marriage skirts too closely to mixing church and state. The state doesn't have an interest in relationships and sex, but it DOES have an interest in allowing its citizens to obtain certain rights and responsibilities. By doing this, you make the illegality of not offering the same rights to gay people as straight that much clearer. Offering civil unions to all people, but making the version for gay people weaker is a straightforward violation of the 14th amendment. And of course, churches and other private institutions are both free to not marry gay people, OR FREE TO DO SO. That religious, cultural battle can rage on as it likes, but it shouldn't be waged in a federal building. Applying a culturally and socially significant work like "Marriage" to a straightforward legal agreement is just asking for unnecessary trouble, and the state has no interest in any other aspect of a relationship between 2 consenting adults.

In other countries, even if they do not have the 14th Amendment, the moral principle behind them is still equally applicable.

I don't understand. As far as I can tell your "solution" is just replacing the word "marriage" with the term "civil union". I'm baffled as to how you can believe just changing a word will actually make a difference. If the state has nothing to do with people's romantic relationships, why should even civil unions exist?

The religious and cultural significance of marriage is just a pathetic justification for denying gay people their rights. They aren't trying to stop gay people getting married because they think it will ruin their word. They want to stop gay people getting married, and they are using the argument that it will ruin their word as a means to that end.

 

[Moderated]

Because if you get your moral stance from religion you don't get a new one when you take office?
This just in: Murder is now legal, because a religion says it's bad and separation of church and state obviously means that if a religion and government agree on anything, they have to put a stop to it.


Okay, feel better now.
Anyway, I support gay marriage.

 

[Vivi22]

Marriage is last I checked a religious thing. The State can issue a civil union but Marriage is what the church defines it as. Provided I am correct in that first bit, we cannot make the Church accept gay marriage as acceptable because that would be the state imposing rules upon the church right?

We could allow Gay Civil Union because that is state controlled. But Marriage is.. well not something the state has any legitimate control over.

No, marriage is not a solely "religious thing." Variations of it exist in pretty much all cultures both as a religious practice and otherwise. Moreover, the very simple fact that government not only conveys rights upon married couples which are not governed by any religion, and that I was able to be married at the local justice building by a government official in a ceremony which most certainly didn't have any religious underpinnings is proof that marriage is not a religious thing.

And yes, a marriage performed by the state is still a marriage under the law. In fact, a marriage has no legal effect unless it is sanctioned by the state. Moreover, legal recognition of gay marriage isn't the same as forcing a religion to accept gay marriage. They're free to continue being as bigoted as they want. The state, however, isn't.

 

[Bruenin]

snip

snip

Marriage existed before Christianity. The bible may have guidelines on how to hold a wedding but it doesn't mean it's only a religious thing. Pork is religious in some places, I don't think you're going to start arguing against health standards and other such laws placed on pork.

Egyptians, Romans, and Nubians (and more) all got married in their own way before Christ, and having laws making marriage only be one special way seems silly :/ especially when it's a private event that effects no one else.

Marriage isn't only a religious thing

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

With all due respect, you should do a little more research about the Bible instead of just throwing together random quotes from it. The laws that you've quoted are all from the Old Testament and are no longer applicable nor required of Christians, because the New Testament is about Jesus' coming and his abolishment of all those old laws, which also include things like not eating pork and staying at home on the Sabbath and all the rest of that stuff. The laws of the Old Testament are in no way encouraged anymore, only used as a guideline with what the New Testament preaches.

This is bullshit and you know it.
Because if the old testament doesn't hold up, god would've been wrong and his divine plan is basically for the gutter. Why would we have any need for such an incompetent definitly-not-omnipotent-being, who can't even get the basic rules straight?
Ontop of that, why is there creationism? It's based on the Genesis, which when i last checked it, was in the old testament.

What you say does not hold up in reality. The old testament is taken very seriously by a big bunch of believers. The genesis, the ten commandments and all the old hoax stories like Noah etc. are still very present.

If you don't believe in the old testament, you're not a chrisitian for me - you're a cherry picker. And everything moral etc. you hold dear could be achieved by secular reasons, without the need to cherry pick some quotes from a 2000 year old book from a nomad desert folk.

 

[Olas]

It can pretty much be chalked up to

[HEADING=2]

MARRIAGE

IS[/HEADING][HEADING=1]

WEIRD!!![/HEADING]​

It's a traditionally religious event given a legal significance in modern day, the rules of which are based on the dominant religion in the land at the time they were written. Even though you can have a non-christian wedding, legally it's still restricted to all the things a christian one would be.

 

[Palademon]

"Because this is one nation under GOD! If you don't like it you're not American!"

 

[bobajob]

Not religious here, have Gay friends & am totally fine with it. Morally, there is no issue.

The whole reason for marriage, traditionally, is to provide a stable family environment for your children, right?

So unless a gay couple would want to actually adopt or otherwise be responsible for another child, why even bother? Civil partnership is just fine in that situation, isn't it?

That's the only reason I could think of why they shouldn't be married. Perhaps they simply want to symbolise their love for each other by making that commitment; so if they can justify the ridiculous expense & don't mind not getting the tax breaks, eh, whatever. Have fun.

No idea how my partner & I will afford our wedding at the moment though. Economy sux(save that for a different thread, right?)

 

[Jacco]

To me, being against gays getting married is like being against Dark Souls 2 getting an easy mode: it isn't going to affect you, so shut up about it. I have never heard a legitimate reasons why gays shouldn't get married, and it is something we're going to look back on in the future the same way we look back on racism today. It's going to be a whole lot "how the hell did we let this go on for so long?" I swear if there is a god, he must be going "should've gone with Dolphins..." from time to time.

Whenever someone says to me "Gays shouldn't be allowed because the bible says its wrong" I just reply "Well the bible also suggested that Eve had sex with one of her sons, so I guess incest must be okay".

Just because the reasons aren't legitimate to you doesn't mean they aren't or cannot be to someone else.

The live and let live ideal goes both ways. By condemning them for their veiws, you are in turn doing the same.

 

[Henkie36]

Speaking from a country where the seperation between church and state is a fact, The Netherlands, I find it increasingly stupid that the country that is the most free in the world, restricts you in the most absurd possible ways. If you ask me, same sex marriage is a personal choiche, and I don't think that the state should interfere with that. The seperation between church and state isn't fully developed yet in the USA. What else can you say then: ''Gawd bless 'Murcia!''

 

[thethird0611]

The real solution is easy. Churches can do whatever they want in terms of marrying. Some churches marry gay couples, most don't. Let em. Meanwhile, the state can offer to allow 2 individuals to enter into a legally binding document that carries the rights and responsibilities we associate with marriage, called a Civil Union. It doesn't care about love of sex or whatever, it is a legal document. Problem solved.

Problem not solved, actually. Under current laws Civil Unions are inferior to marriage, literally lacking hundreds of the benefits afforded via the contract of marriage. Until such a time that that changes, 'Civil Unions' are less a solution than a token gesture. And frankly I don't much see the point in making a duplicate legal status simply to preserve some people's sensibilities. If the state is to grant similar status, there's no reason to have separate terms in the first place.

Well yes, Civil Union laws are not as good as marriage, but that is because Civil Unions were written as being specifically for gay couples. Civil Unions needs to apply to ALL couples, and once that happens, then gay couples can't possibly have a inferior institution. And the state SHOULD call it Civil Unions, because the state has no interest in a tradition that deals with romance and sex, gay OR straight. The state shouldn't care if a gay OR straight couple wants to settle down and start a family, it only cares that 2 individuals wish to give legal consent to enter into a binding legal agreement. In that light, fighting for marriage is just fighting an unnecessary battle for an inferior use of semantics.

Of course, Ive accepted that that ship has probably sailed, and we will never see the day when straight people enter into civil unions for the states legal perspective, and marriage is used by private institutions only. It's too bad, but given that fact then yes, all homosexual people need the right to marry. It's not the most effective or logical way to level the playing field, but it is far more important that the field be leveled, and screw anyone who thinks that people should be treated differently based on their sexuality. I think that that's the one thing that we can all agree on.

You know whats funny? I always come into these threads and see -nothing- but religious bashing (and ignorant religious bashing at that), but never anyone actually pitching a real idea.

This is the first time ive seen someone who I actually seriously agree with someone.

I am very religious myself, and don't agree with homosexuality, but I do agree with fair treatment under the laws for all. Marriage cannot be legislated because it is religious, its pretty much saying "That kid there has a toy I like, make him give it to me!", but union laws cannot be denied because of civil right, which is like saying "I have this toy and I dont want him to have one like it, dont let him get one!"

Marriage is not the same as a union.

But yeah, +1 for you man.

 

[chipshop hendrix]

if in america you are allowed civil marriages (i have no idea if you are or not i am from northern ireland - where we do have civil marriages) then there is absolutley no reason that gay people cannot get married. it is none of any churches' business - if the couple want to get married in a church...well that is a different matter.

 

[Hagi]

Not religious here, have Gay friends & am totally fine with it. Morally, there is no issue.

The whole reason for marriage, traditionally, is to provide a stable family environment for your children, right?

So unless a gay couple would want to actually adopt or otherwise be responsible for another child, why even bother? Civil partnership is just fine in that situation, isn't it?

What's also in play is that marriage is a human right. One that's being denied based on sexuality.

Even if people don't plan on getting married they'll still want to be recognized as human beings and all the rights that come with that, currently homosexual people are not.

I am very religious myself, and don't agree with homosexuality, but I do agree with fair treatment under the laws for all. Marriage cannot be legislated because it is religious, its pretty much saying "That kid there has a toy I like, make him give it to me!", but union laws cannot be denied because of civil right, which is like saying "I have this toy and I dont want him to have one like it, dont let him get one!"

Marriage has never been a purely religious thing. Historically it's been far more closely tied to civil matters. The ceremony, a whole hour in what's intended to last for years on end, is religious. The entire thing that follows is almost purely civil.

There's a wife historically becoming property of her husband, alliances being sealed in marriage, bastards being incapable of inheriting etc. All of them civil matters, the only reason they're closely tied to religion is that only very recently church and state were separated.

This idea that the government has nothing to do with marriage is nonsensical. Marriage has, even before Christianity or any of the other major religions, always been closely tied with civil matters. Different religions have merely latched onto the practice and made their own ceremonies to seal it.

The ceremony is religious and that you can withhold from gay couples, no priest has to marry them in a church. The practice of marrying itself is not religious but civil and as such should not be withheld based on sexuality.