Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: GreenMonsta on October 31, 2008, 07:45:49 PM
-
Listen this is continued from Grumpy Bear thread. I am not a leader in the gay rights movement. I dont see why the government should have any say in the matter. I mean honestly isnt there such a thing a separation of church and state? Why should the government allow certain things for heterosexuals and not homosexuals? How is that in any way right. Ok I get the fact that you at the same time think homosexuality is wrong but you dont dislike it. Alot of people are in the same boat. The thing is why are you any better than them? Who are you to have more rights than they? I honestly think that we as American citizens have the right to be EQUAL in every way. Not forced equality like Communism but the availability of equality. How could you tell a homosexual couple that your "family" was better than his/hers? Could you do that with a clean conscious? I for one hope not. The government has no right allowing some accepted group of people rights and denying those same rights to others with sexual orientation as the only driving factor. Ok the idea of marriage has been declining at a fairly rapid rate, your right about that but so has the christian religion as a whole. What if there was a religion out there that allowed gay marriage? Why would you say then? I only wonder. I dont mean to be one sided here seeing how im a hetero-sexual male but come on. There isnt one American who deserves more rights than any other.
-
The "right" of a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman did not previously exist in this country and is a new invention. Gay people have just as much right to marry as everyone else: The right to marry someone of the opposite gender who agrees to marry you.
Gay marriage advocates think this is a ridiculous argument, but it's the plain truth. Marriage in our society has always had a gender component and the definition should not be changed unless there is a broad consensus among all walks of society that it should be changed. If a broad consensus does decide to change it, that will mean this country has gone down the tubes, but I don't think that day has yet arrived.
Yes, my conscience is entirely clear. If something is a sin, I am constitutionally free to say so, and I will.
And regarding church and state, go to churchstate.org, which (I think) has long fought for the separation of church and state, to see how gay marriage actually hurts the separation of church and state.
(My previous post (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=293.msg130333#msg130333), my wife's posts (http://origamikaren.blogspot.com/), NPR story on what's being done to people/organizations who are against same-sex marriage (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340).)
-
So you wouldnt be oppesed to same sex unions that would entitle same sex couples to have all the same rights a a married couple? The only differance would be the title. If that were the case then I would be fine with that. I mean in the end what is a title if the end result is still the same.
-
Thomas Jefferson wanted to make sure government could not "come between a man and his God." My point is that was included in the Constitution to ensure that government could not interfere with matters of the Church not the other way around. This country was founded on Christian ideals. I believe most, if not all, of the founding fathers were members of the Church of England the mother church of the Anglican Communion. So, if you search the Constitution for evidence supporting the right to gay marriage I do not think you will find it.
-
I don't think I ever said there was any evidence saying there was a right to gay marriage. I'm only saying that it isn't right to keep rights from any person who would be involved in the same type of committed relationship as a married man and woman. I'm also almost positive that our government was created with the ability to realize change and conform to it. I don't think the constitution was created as a way to keep rights from people just because of the way some choose to interpret it. I think things like the constitution were created to allow us as a country to modify the outlines of our laws according to the time. If you think they intended to keep the laws of this country the same from inception to present day I think you are short sighted. I don't understand how people think the way some of you do. That isn't meant as an insult it is just a product of being raised in a different environment. I love how this comes down to some people thinking it is ok to select a group of people and dub them privileged and say that if you are not in this group then you don't deserve the same treatment as those of us who are. It boarders being a biggot, and I for one know that those of you who feel this way are not bigots. Explain to me why they don't deserve the same rights. Please give me a level headed clear explanation why we shouldn't allow them some type of union. Also please tell me what place that religion has in the government? That I would like to hear. I mean really the idea is nice seeing how religion outlines how people should live and generally gives an outline of how to be a moral person but that should not be factor when it comes to things of this nature. Committing a Sin is not the same as being a criminal so if you view homosexuality as a sin tell me why it is a crime and why we should treat people differently because of it. Fine marriage is a religious term, just give all the rights and privileges of a married couple to the gays and come up with some new term, maybe something flashy and flamboyant to fit their character right?
Please hold while I vomit.
-
Mean,
My post about the Constitution was in response to your question on the seperation of Church and State. Also, I have been labeled, in the past, as a Constitutionalist so you must forgive my "short-sightedness". I wholeheartedly agree with you that no person should be restricted from being with whomever they chose to be. Oh, by the way my sister is gay so I don't know what "different" environment you are referring to. I struggle to find the right answer in this situation as I am Christian but find it hard to say a gay union should not be allowed as I love my sister and wish her nothing but happiness. ....Anyways.... My post was to outline that nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the right to same sex marriages. However, I agree that it was written with the idea that it could change according to the time ie Ammendments but just because something CAN change doesn't mean it should. Also, just because a change IS made that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
As far as the place religion has in government...well...this is how I see it. What is right? What is wrong? Two , simple,yet immensely puzzling questions. I believe that right and wrong are objective concepts. So, where else would you look to find the answers to what is wrong and what is right?
-
So you wouldnt be oppesed to same sex unions that would entitle same sex couples to have all the same rights a a married couple? The only differance would be the title. If that were the case then I would be fine with that. I mean in the end what is a title if the end result is still the same.
Basically yes.
Except that I'm concerned about adoptions, with the possible exception of adoptions of kids whose parents are related to the adopter or are explicitly totally OK with it; personally I'm against it but if it's the will of the original guardian (and it's not the state making the decision) then I could consider it a free will issue. I don't think getting raised by gay parents is the best option for a child, but it's for sure better than abortion and I acknowledge that there are plenty of bad heterosexual parents out there.
Nevertheless this proposition won't do anything to affect adoptions via California state-sponsored adoption agencies; same-sex couples have already been allowed for several years to adopt via those agencies either by law or by agency policy (I'm not sure which). Passing prop 8, however, may help religious-based private adoption agencies keep their heterosexual parent policies without being sued to change them; Catholic Charities in Massachusetts for instance already had to stop offering adoptions there because of state pressure.
However—back to your original question—same-sex couples already have most of, if not all, the rights of married couples under California law. But a lot of same-sex couples aren't satisfied with that; they want the recognition that their relationships are just the same as traditional marriages (and this is in fact how the state government views it since the Supreme Court ruled in May). I understand their desire for this recognition, but I can't agree that the judges made the right decision for society as a whole or the right decision according to the existing legal wording of the state constitution.
-
Alright Maddness I liked that.
First the different environments wasn't meant as a bad thing it was only to state that I was raised differently. Again it wasn't meant to say that what I think or how I feel is better but to say we may have different points of view according to how we were raised.
Good response to the church and state comment, don't get me wrong I understand constitutionalists and most of the time I agree with them as long as they realize as you do that things can change. I also agree that just because they can change and we might change things doesn't make it right. But is denying rights from people right. Wouldn't you think that from any kind of religious standpoint that it would make more sense to treat people equally. This goes beyond what the words of the bible might say and beyond what the church might say but what the overall ideals are. And don't get me wrong again I am also christian (catholic), the ideals are for the good of mankind and I don't see how we as a country are in any way looking out for the good of mankind by denying these things from people who aren't doing anything wrong. And yes I said it, they aren't doing anything wrong. If people want to hide their children from what is out there and shelter them from reality then I would call that wrong. For in the end all you would be doing is limitting possabilities for us as a race. Whatever I'm not going down that road. All I'm saying is that by dividing these people we are causing a problem we don't need. I don't know what it would take for some people to just accept who other people are and realize we all deserve the same possabilities. If I were gay I would want the chance to have a union with the one I loved. Heck I'm straight and don't think I'll ever marry but that isn't the point. Its like I'm wasting something that many people don't even have the right to. How right is that.
Also I think as an intelligent community we have the overall ability to asses a situation and decide what is right. In a general sense. That doesn't mean that we make the right choice all the time and even in a situation like this we may choose wrong. But in the end we know what is morally right and we don't need the bible or any other religious source to tell us that. I mean if we didn't have religion would the whole human race be evil? I for one think not. That isn't saying that I am not religious its just saying I have a little more faith in us than that.
Ook-
Alright I knew you weren't a bad guy. I'm glad to hear alot of what you posted. The adoption thing is a little iffy for me. I really don't know how I feel about it. I do for one feel that a child needs both male and female support to properly grow but that isn't saying that gay couples would do a bad job of it. Heck maybe the kid would get enough from outside sources. I frankly don't know and when it comes to kids I guess I would tend to lean your way on it only because I wouldn't be willing to risk it. I also agree that Marriage is a religious ceremony and term and that the government should have no say in what any religion accepts. If the church says no then that's the way it is. As long as there are no rights being with held from the gay couples I don't have any issue with it. As far as I'm concerned they really don't have the "right" to be "married" in the traditional sense only because it isn't traditional and that is kinda important.
-
Mean,
I believe our opinions on this matter are closer than they originally appeared. We both want to do the RIGHT thing and are struggling to find out just what that really is.
-
Aww your right madness and even though Ook looks at homosexuality as wrong I think we are close to him as well.
-
Whooo boy hot button issue here. :D
First off, I'll probably upset a lot of people on here, but I am bisexual. Wow, let's grab the pitchforks and torches amd burn CthulhuKefka! ;) I have been this way my whole life, and believe me, it is not a "choice."
In response to Madness's assertions that America's was founded as a "Christian Nation." I am tired of hearing this argument. Most of the founding fathers, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe and many others were NOT Christians. They were Deists. Deist hold to using Reason to solve political and social problems. Deists also believe that "God" separated himself from the Universe after he created it. This country was founded as a religious Neutral country.
Here in lies the problem though. On one hand, there is the separation of Church and State. Ok, so in the eyes of most religious faiths, homosexuality is a sin, therefore, a man wedding a man would be denied. And technically, under the first amendment, they are legally protected in their beliefs.
But what of other religions that are more liberal in their beliefs? Say for instance, an established religion where homosexuals are treated just as regular as any other person (which they are)? Are they also not protected legally under the first amendment? What right does the government have to tell another church that their religious beliefs are invalid? Absolutely none.
Marriage may well be a religious institution. So if a homosexual couple wishes to get married under a religion that accepts them, there should be nothing prohibiting them.
-
CthulhuKefka, first off, having an attraction to someone is not a choice. Acting on that attraction is what is a choice. Unless you get raped, you make a choice about who you have sex with.
Second, you're absolutely right: The government should not be involved in telling churches who they can and cannot marry. And there are prominent churches like the Episcopalians which are A-OK with homosexuality. They have gay marriage ceremonies in their churches, and I'm not particularly aware of anyone (who is not in the Anglican community) having tried to stop them. (Or rather, not all Episcopalian churches agree on this, and they're having a sort of internal crisis now, with some individual churches deciding to go through the anti-homosexual African branch of the church instead of through the pro-homosexual US branch. But this is beside the point in this thread.)
Your statement is kind of confusing the issue, unless it's just reaffirming what we already said. The government should not get involved in what churches call marriage within their own church. If they don't want homosexual marriages performed in their buildings, no one (from outside their organization) should force them to allow them. If they want homosexual marriages performed in their buildings, no one (from outside their organization) should force them to stop.
Nevertheless, homosexual marriage being accepted in these churches is a relatively quite recent development and does not represent the opinion of anywhere close to the majority of religious communities.
The real question here is not what churches should or can do within their own organizations but what the government should do. In the last decade, almost every state in the U.S. has passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A large majority of them have also enacted constitutional amendments saying the same thing. Most people in the country believe that the government should not recognize as marriage the relationship of a same-sex couple.
The question of whether the founding fathers were Christian: Eh, there are a lot of contradictory sources. Most people writing about this issue that I've found are pushing one agenda or another. Here's one that seems more balanced. (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/) It seems clear to me that according to the quotes that can actually be verified, the founding fathers who are identified as Deists did not believe in a God who created the universe and then went away—they believed that the hand of Providence took an active role in certain events of the day and that they were ultimately answerable to God. The Deists did not trust the creeds of the organized religions, and some of them did not believe in the divinity of Christ, but they believed in the rightness of Christian principles (principles, not "doctrines"). Even Jefferson thought Christ's teachings (the ones he thought were recorded correctly in the Bible) were good stuff. Yet they were very much against persecution of anyone for religious reasons, and were against using religion to promote tyranny. So am I.
But trotting out the names of the deists also sidelines the large percentage of the founding fathers (members of the constitutional convention, etc.) who were explicitly Christian. Here's a link (http://www.errantskeptics.org/Fifty-Five-Delegates.htm) (note that while it lists all the convention delegates' religious affiliations, that doesn't necessarily mean they were practicing Christians, but it gives examples of ones who were and ones who at least were not clockmaker-Deists).
...This whole discussion also though is kind of beside the point. I'm not sure what you were trying to say in regards to whether a definition of marriage should be part of the constitution.
-
You're right, acting on attraction is a choice, not just for homosexuals, but for heterosexuals as well. Marriage is also a choice. It's kind of a bum argument. A homosexual couple can't find acceptance because someone says "it's a choice." Heterosexual couples make the SAME choices. There is no difference.
I'm not saying that Christian churches should be forced to allow same-sex marriages. If it came out that way, I apologize., that wasn't my intention. What I mean to say is that for religions that allow same-sex marriages, which law should be followed if it is in a state that has "defined" marriage as between a man and a woman? While the state's law clearly says no, the first amendment prohibits interference in that religion, therefore a church that allows same-sex marriages should be allowed to conduct those marriages. It seems like a contradiction in law.
Since a large majority of homosexual couples I know want to get married, if only to get the same benefits as a regular married couples, then it IS a governmental issue. And when it comes down to a governmental issue, the real problem lies in which law to follow. It is a sticky situation. I'm just glad I live in a state that acknowledges this, but feel for my friends who live in other states that haven't recognized this.
-
Churches in all states can perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they want. The ceremonies are not legally binding in states that don't recognize same-sex marriage, but it is not illegal for churches in those states to perform the ceremonies.
Actually, in all states, it is not the religious ceremony that has any recognition under the law—so no church wedding ceremonies are legally binding whether they're for same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples. According to the law, the marriage comes into effect and is legally binding as soon as the state-issued marriage license is signed by all parties and filed with the state, whether this is before or after the religious ceremony or whether there is a religious ceremony at all.
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "which law to follow." Also, I still don't get what you're saying when you say it's a choice. I think we all agree that people choose who they decide to marry.
-
I was under the impression that "Gay rights" meant much more than just the right to get legally married to another gay person, but also things like protecting against job discrimination etc. Is that not the case?
Also Meanmonsta you're a Catholic Christian. Does that mean you believe the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God? If so what do you think about verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10?
-
Yes, "gay rights" as a phrase does include all those things. Prop 8, which prompted GreenMonsta to make this thread, only defines marriage as between a man and a woman; it does not affect anything like job discrimination, which is already illegal.
Also, there are a number of Christians who accept that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, yet don't believe (because of the separation of church and state) that the government should prohibit same-sex marriage just because of religions that believe homosexuality is wrong.
I also am not keen on the government enforcing the laws of religion. But I believe there are non-religious, societal reasons to protect the traditional man+woman definition of marriage.
-
Besides the ever ongoing "family/child raising" debate, what other non-religious, societal reasons are there to define it between a man and a woman only? I'm not trying to be snide, I'm just curious.
There really is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals other than the obvious.
-
Can you think of any reason society should give any kind of status to couples that has nothing to do with children?
There isn't anything that I can think of. This whole issue is about children.
Yes, some couples don't choose to have children, but the the existence of exceptions to the ideal doesn't mean the ideal should be eliminated.
-
Most people's perspectives on marriage today is terribly limited:
In most early societies, marriage was a terribly informal thing—well into the Middle Ages, all that was required for a marriage to be legal and binding was consent; if two individuals said the words (initially, even without witness), they were married. There was no further governmental oversight of the matter. The Catholic Church, however, got more and more involved in mediating marriages, ensuring that a certain separation of consanguinuity was upheld, as well as ensuring that societal approval had been granting before a couple consumated a marriage.
All of this dealt directly with ensuring that children had fathers who were not too closely related to mothers, and in guarding the virginal chastity of women. It was not for a long time after this that the State took the role of the Church (in approving and mediating marriages) upon itself—and in this case, it was primarily for the administrative purposes of handling parentage and succession (in particular, Feudal rulers were keenly interested in how property was disseminated among their vassals).
From a historical perspective, the entire function of legalized marriage is to preserve the state by ensuring proper endogamy and/or exogamy (for religious reasons, fundamentally, but this is almost certainly directly related to conceivable children), and that children will be properly raised, cared for, and educated (the latter being less of a concern today), and, in societies where it matters (ours does not particularly), to ensure sexual monogamy.
None of these concerns appear to apply to homosexual marriage, which is something which was never considered in times long past, even in societies where homosexuality was widespread: none of the ancients could even coneive of the use for such a thing.
-
My main problem with your societal-reasons is that those were and are based off of Christian definition of what marriage is. When the government decided that they could start taxing and regulating marriage (which had ALWAYS been a religious endeavor until the government took over.) they took their definition from what Christianity said about it. So this whole societal-reason is has a religious basis which shouldn't be defined by the government.
I personally don't think the government should have a say about marriage at all, because it is a "spiritual" connecting of two people.
-
I used to have the opinion of "I don't really care" about this situation. But then one of my friends sent me this e-mail, and it really opened my eyes. Those of you who aren't LDS won't care as much, but you can also see how it might come back to effect you guys as well:
Dear family and friends,
I had a very disturbing experience yesterday that I would like to share with those of you that live outside of California (or outside of the San Francisco Bay Area).
This weekend we have stake conference. Our stake conference always begins with a stake temple session on Friday or Thursday night.
Early Friday morning I received a call from the second counselor in our bishopric to let me know that there would be numerous protesters outside the temple, and to remind everyone to stay calm and to drive carefully. The beautiful Oakland Temple is located right across the bay from San Francisco , very close to the city of Berkeley. Apparently the opposition to proposition 8, the amendment that seeks to make marriage in CA between a man and a woman again, has realized the deep involvement of the church and begun to protest right outside of the temple and harass temple patrons. The fastest way to get to the temple from our house is to take the 680 freeway, but the exit is a bit tricky. The off ramp is extremely short and straight uphill. You then make an almost blind left turn, an immediate right and another left into the parking lot. As we approached the off ramp, I realized there would be trouble. There was a backup onto the freeway from cars stalled on the off ramp.
As we moved forward inches at a time, we realized this was due to a large group of loud protesters who were standing on both sides of the street, yelling, screaming and waving signs. When we got to the top of the offramp, ready to make our turn, one protester jumped out right in front of our car. It took my husband all his self control to carefully maneuver around him to the left and proceed to the temple. I tried not to listen to all they were shouting at us, but I was shaking as I got to the temple front door. Several of the sisters, especially the ones driving on their own, were crying (which made me snap out of it and go into RS President mode to comfort them). Later, as I was sitting in the perfect quiet of the chapel, I couldn't help but think of Lehi's dream, and the people who mocked the Saints from the big
spacious building but 'we heeded them not.' It was a truly surreal experience, I'd never thougth that I would have to go through an angry crowd to get to the temple. As we left late at night, the protesters had dispersed, temple security (who all looked very large and Tongan) stood by the gates. I never saw a single police man.
In a recent LDS Sacrament meeting in California , the focus was on Amendment 8. (The gay marriage issue.) one of the speakers who was an LDS judge in the area, had statistics that were 'mind blowing'.
For example, in Boston, MA (where gay marriages are now legal,) the Catholic Charities have closed their doors because the state has required them to allow adoptions to same sex couples, and they refused. They are a large and worthwhile charity with great power in the state and they were overruled.
A Methodist church has lost their tax exempt status because the minister refused to perform a marriage of a same sex couple (they were not of his congregation).
A physician who refused to do fertility treatments on a same sex couple because of religious reasons was sued, lost and the state is requiring him to treat everyone as equals.
Our schools will be required to teach, starting in kindergarten, that marriages make up many different combinations. The consequences are horrible.
Directly tied into ALL of this is our right to continue to go to the Temple. If Gay Marriage is supported by the government, then those who are same-sex married, who are 'LDS' and legally recognized as married by the government, can sue to be married in the temple. It is my opinion that the church will not bend on this issue, and our rights to go to the temple will be in jeopardy.
AND goodbye to those religious tax-deductions. Tithing, fast offerings, etc. We will lose our tax-exemption status if the government legally forces the church to support same-sex marriage'
(snip)
Another friend says that her relatives in Sweden are even watching what goes on in California. Friends in Canada are watching. The whole world is watching to see what happens.
Now, I don't mean to offend anyone by posting this, I just thought it would be something for people to think about.
-
I used to have the opinion of "I don't really care" about this situation. But then one of my friends sent me this e-mail, and it really opened my eyes. Those of you who aren't LDS won't care as much, but you can also see how it might come back to effect you guys as well:
Dear family and friends,
I had a very disturbing experience yesterday that I would like to share with those of you that live outside of California (or outside of the San Francisco Bay Area).
This weekend we have stake conference. Our stake conference always begins with a stake temple session on Friday or Thursday night.
Early Friday morning I received a call from the second counselor in our bishopric to let me know that there would be numerous protesters outside the temple, and to remind everyone to stay calm and to drive carefully. The beautiful Oakland Temple is located right across the bay from San Francisco , very close to the city of Berkeley. Apparently the opposition to proposition 8, the amendment that seeks to make marriage in CA between a man and a woman again, has realized the deep involvement of the church and begun to protest right outside of the temple and harass temple patrons. The fastest way to get to the temple from our house is to take the 680 freeway, but the exit is a bit tricky. The off ramp is extremely short and straight uphill. You then make an almost blind left turn, an immediate right and another left into the parking lot. As we approached the off ramp, I realized there would be trouble. There was a backup onto the freeway from cars stalled on the off ramp.
As we moved forward inches at a time, we realized this was due to a large group of loud protesters who were standing on both sides of the street, yelling, screaming and waving signs. When we got to the top of the offramp, ready to make our turn, one protester jumped out right in front of our car. It took my husband all his self control to carefully maneuver around him to the left and proceed to the temple. I tried not to listen to all they were shouting at us, but I was shaking as I got to the temple front door. Several of the sisters, especially the ones driving on their own, were crying (which made me snap out of it and go into RS President mode to comfort them). Later, as I was sitting in the perfect quiet of the chapel, I couldn't help but think of Lehi's dream, and the people who mocked the Saints from the big
spacious building but 'we heeded them not.' It was a truly surreal experience, I'd never thougth that I would have to go through an angry crowd to get to the temple. As we left late at night, the protesters had dispersed, temple security (who all looked very large and Tongan) stood by the gates. I never saw a single police man.
In a recent LDS Sacrament meeting in California , the focus was on Amendment 8. (The gay marriage issue.) one of the speakers who was an LDS judge in the area, had statistics that were 'mind blowing'.
For example, in Boston, MA (where gay marriages are now legal,) the Catholic Charities have closed their doors because the state has required them to allow adoptions to same sex couples, and they refused. They are a large and worthwhile charity with great power in the state and they were overruled.
A Methodist church has lost their tax exempt status because the minister refused to perform a marriage of a same sex couple (they were not of his congregation).
A physician who refused to do fertility treatments on a same sex couple because of religious reasons was sued, lost and the state is requiring him to treat everyone as equals.
Our schools will be required to teach, starting in kindergarten, that marriages make up many different combinations. The consequences are horrible.
Directly tied into ALL of this is our right to continue to go to the Temple. If Gay Marriage is supported by the government, then those who are same-sex married, who are 'LDS' and legally recognized as married by the government, can sue to be married in the temple. It is my opinion that the church will not bend on this issue, and our rights to go to the temple will be in jeopardy.
AND goodbye to those religious tax-deductions. Tithing, fast offerings, etc. We will lose our tax-exemption status if the government legally forces the church to support same-sex marriage'
(snip)
Another friend says that her relatives in Sweden are even watching what goes on in California. Friends in Canada are watching. The whole world is watching to see what happens.
Now, I don't mean to offend anyone by posting this, I just thought it would be something for people to think about.
I think that the government is overstepping its bound BY FAR in doing many of these things. I don't think they should be able to force any religious organization to do anything. This is ridiculous that the government would do that simply because the RELIGIOUS group chose to not support what the GOVERNMENT wanted to do. We really need to work on bringing Antidisestablishmentarianism.
-
Ok that stinks. No one should be harassed on their way to Church. I know it was horrible and I feel bad about it but we all have to understand that extremist exist on both sides. Also I'm not trying to cut your article short or anything like that but the Boston Ma. area where gay marriages are now legal has lost alot of its support, money and followers due to many different things over the last 10 years. Following the church scandal with Cardinal Bernard Law many parishes were actually closed by the Archdiocese having nothing to do with gay marriage. I'm sure that it does effect the church in some way but it would be closed minded to think that gay marriage is the cause of the decline of the church.
Again I am sorry you had to deal with that situation.
-
Some of those warnings are a bit hyperbolic. I think that one about a Methodist minister is a confusion of the Methodist summer camp story (the minister was not forced to perform a wedding; they were forced to allow a wedding in a pavilion they considered a religious building). Also while the church may get sued to allow gay temple weddings, I don't think the suits would be successful in court. At least I hope they wouldn't—but in a few decades, who knows? I think there is validity to the slippery slope argument.
Also the ads the No people have on TV right now are so manipulative and misleading. It's going to be very close.
-
I agree this is a slippery slope. I also agree that the government doesn't have the right to dictate to a religious organization what it must or must not do. That is part of the separation of church and state. Neither one gets to tell the other what the must or must not do. Religion doesn't dictate to government, and government doesn't dictate to religion.
-
Some of those warnings are a bit hyperbolic. I think that one about a Methodist minister is a confusion of the Methodist summer camp story (the minister was not forced to perform a wedding; they were forced to allow a wedding in a pavilion they considered a religious building). Also while the church may get sued to allow gay temple weddings, I don't think the suits would be successful in court. At least I hope they wouldn't—but in a few decades, who knows? I think there is validity to the slippery slope argument.
Also the ads the No people have on TV right now are so manipulative and misleading. It's going to be very close.
And on the other hand, many major religious groups have donated obscene amounts of money to support Yes on Prop 8. Yes, people have a right to donate where they please, but is religion influencing government? For the most part, opponents of same-sex marriages are against it for religious reasons. It shouldn't influence government and laws. Let's swing that pendulum the other way. Is polygamy all right then? I see nothing but hypocrisy for someone to actively support polygamy but denounce same-sex marriage.
-
I'm not sure if you're talking about current beliefs or past beliefs, but let me give a couple of facts about polygamy.
First and formost: We no longer pratice polygamy. We have it outlawed, as does everyone.
Second: When it was praticed and supported there were some more logical points behind it. The satistics were something like two or three women to every man. So it was something more for protection and such because back then it was socially unacceptable for women to live in a house with children alone. They were taken care of by the family of their dead husbands, or by a second husband. So it was to help protect and support the women that was the main focus.
-
For perspective, the LDS church stopped practicing polygamy in 1890, over a hundred years ago. But I think you're overstating the statistical case there, firstRainbowRose. The ratio was never that high.
The Book of Mormon makes it clear that God is generally against polygamy, since there's abuse potential built into the system, but that he reserves the right to command it to happen when he wants a population to expand more rapidly. He commanded this in the early days of the Old Testament patriarchs and the tribes of Israel, and he commanded it again in the early days of the LDS church. When he says no, though, he means no. (And as same-sex marriage has nothing to do with population expansion, among other reasons, he would never command it.)
Cranberry—as far as I know, it is generally not religious groups that have donated to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, but individual people who are members of those religious groups. The LDS church has not used church tithing dollars to donate to the Yes campaign. That money is coming from individual people or businesses that people own, not from the church.
If people can't donate to campaigns based on their beliefs, under what terms should they be able to donate to campaigns? The No campaign has had a ton of money donated to it as well.
-
My main problem with your societal-reasons is that those were and are based off of Christian definition of what marriage is. When the government decided that they could start taxing and regulating marriage (which had ALWAYS been a religious endeavor until the government took over.) they took their definition from what Christianity said about it. So this whole societal-reason is has a religious basis which shouldn't be defined by the government.
I personally don't think the government should have a say about marriage at all, because it is a "spiritual" connecting of two people.
You seem to have misunderstood me! I'm not only talking about societal reasons in Western Europe including the Medieval period (heavily based on the Christian concept of marriage), but also including the pre-Christian period in Rome and Greece. It shows a lack of historical understanding to blame this on Christianity; Greece and (pre-Christian) Rome were quite clear on the matter as well. Rome had an extraordinarily complex legal system, and marriage was a significant part of that (in fact, our legal system today is based, more or less, off of the Roman one). Marriage in Rome was strictly between a single man and a single woman. I personally believe that it is Roman culture which has associated monogamy with Christianity (Christianity was based out of Rome for centuries)—Jewish tradition had nothing against polygamy and nothing in Christian scripture explicitly condemns polygamy, but Roman tradition, on the other hand, did condemn polygamy.
Homosexual marriage would have defeated the entire Greek and Roman purposes for marriage, which (as abundant evidence shows) was to produce and educate children in order to strengthen the state. In Rome, at least (I am less familiar with ancient Greek customs), marriage was very much a legal matter, though the state did not keep a record of marriages (leaving that to individual families)—but consanguinuity, for example, was defined by the Roman government, and not by any religion, even for those marriages which were explicitly religious (confarreatio, etc.)! Among the Celts and Germans, religion was largely a personal affair: for some religious, for some not.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Roman laws (and definitions of marriage) fell into disuse, and the "barbarian" practice became standard—that of marriage being simply the agreement of two individuals to raise children together. Eventually, however, to protect women who thought they were married to a man who later denied having married them, the Christian (Catholic) Church stepped in and required record-keeping and witnesses. Eventually, in the modern Era, national governments took over the work of record-keeping. However, modern definitions of marriage are no more similar to "Christian" ones than they are to Greek, Roman, or even ancient Chinese ones: marriage as between two people capable of producing children together was universal, and had little inherently to do with religion: the Catholic church got involved, largely, to protect women and reduce bastardhood (a bastard's life was particularly hard in a Feudal society), though trying to ensure exogamy was also included in the Church's efforts.
-
You seem to have misunderstood me! I'm not only talking about societal reasons in Western Europe including the Medieval period (heavily based on the Christian concept of marriage), but also including the pre-Christian period in Rome and Greece.
I was actually targeting Ook with my comments, but I found many of your arguments interesting, but whereas you are unfamiliar with ancient Greece, I just so happen to be a bit familiar with it. Ancient Greece 'Allowed' homosexuality and it can even be seen depicted in some of their art.
Your also forgetting that Rome fell and from what I've read a good portion of the tensions that lead to the event were caused by the government and the people in the government having too much power. ;)
-
I admit I'm wrong on the polygamy thing.
I guess all I'm really trying to say is that same-sex marriage will not destroy the country. It will not end the world, heterosexuals will still get married, get divorced and lead regular lives just like they do now. It's just that homosexuals will do the same. Just Let these people live their lives how they want to live it.
-
Miyabi, I'm not talking about the practice of homosexuality: Yes, homosexuality (primarily in the form of pederasty) was somewhat common in Greece. However, it was condemned by many (Plato in particular was outspoken against it), and I have never read an account of any Greek even considering legalizing homosexual marriage. Yes, poets would talk about the joyful pleasures shared between a young boy and a mature man (pederasty), but, as far as I've read, marriage was for children in ancient Greece, and homosexuality was with children, not for them, so to speak.
-
That may be true to an extent but there was quite a bit that didn't involve a minor as well. Also pederasty continued to be common practice in places like England well into the 17th and 18th century.
-
Well into today, Miyabi. Homosexuality and pedaphelia appear to have been universally (in the sense of all societies) practiced and universally condemned.
The Roman Empire fell for a great number of reasons, but it seems that decadance and welfare were primary reasons among them. A reduction of the number of children born by Roman citizens had actually been posited by contemporaries as one of those reasons.
-
I admit I'm wrong on the polygamy thing.
I guess all I'm really trying to say is that same-sex marriage will not destroy the country. It will not end the world, heterosexuals will still get married, get divorced and lead regular lives just like they do now. It's just that homosexuals will do the same. Just Let these people live their lives how they want to live it.
It's not that simple. Did you skip over the posts in this thread talking about how religious rights are being infringed in the name of gay rights? Apparently, litigious homosexuals think the only way for them to live their life the way they want to live it is to sue everyone whose religious beliefs are against homosexuality. And if religious people try to live their lives the way they want and raise their children the way they want, the homosexual-friendly courts say sorry, they can't.
For religious people who are against homosexuality, their religious rights being infringed is another step toward the end of the world.
-
Just because I hate the fact that they seem to always be mentioned together I want to point out that pedophilia within homosexuality is proportionally the same as it is in heterosexuality. It just gets more attention on one end of the spectrum and is not a situationally exclusive occurrence.
-
I admit I'm wrong on the polygamy thing.
I guess all I'm really trying to say is that same-sex marriage will not destroy the country. It will not end the world, heterosexuals will still get married, get divorced and lead regular lives just like they do now. It's just that homosexuals will do the same. Just Let these people live their lives how they want to live it.
It's not that simple. Did you skip over the posts in this thread talking about how religious rights are being infringed in the name of gay rights? Apparently, litigious homosexuals think the only way for them to live their life the way they want to live it is to sue everyone whose religious beliefs are against homosexuality. And if religious people try to live their lives the way they want and raise their children the way they want, the homosexual-friendly courts say sorry, they can't.
For religious people who are against homosexuality, their religious rights being infringed is another step toward the end of the world.
I didn't skip over those parts. I just wish that nobody's rights would be infringed. People always use examples of radical homosexuals to prove their points, but fail to mention radical religious people as well. There are "litigious" people on both sides, so it is not just homosexuals that are suing everyone. People tend to take the radicals and pin the entire homosexual group with their crimes. What if I did the same for religious people? What if I started thinking every Christian I met was as bad as the people in the Westboro Baptist Church?
-
What if I did the same for religious people? What if I started thinking every Christian I met was as bad as the people in the Westboro Baptist Church?
Actually, most of the debates I've read HAVE taken the radicals stance over the majority in regard to Christianity.
There is no legislation here that is attempting to remove homosexuality or make it illegal. It is not about hate. I do not hate homosexuals. I have several friends that fall into that category. Good friends. We don't need legislation to legitimize a practice that would go on regardless of legistlation.
The legislation of complete equality no matter the gender of the couples is flawed however. In no way are the two equal. The simple fact of shared love does not equate to the important function of the heterosexual couple in society. Socially and financially a heterosexual union has much more potential than a homosexual union.
All people should be treated equal, this is true. There should be no hate, no on the job discrimination, etc. We are moving to the point where this is becoming less and less of a problem. However, the gay marriage legistlation attempts to make equal two things that are not equal, just as women are not men and men are not women. Homosexual couples are not heterosexual couples. It is not about unfair discrimination.
Yes, there should be a way to confer hospital visitation rights, rights of attorney and all that. But Marriage does not make sense.
This does not mean homosexuals cannot legally love/be loved, partner up, etc. They are free to do what they want, as we all are.
(The examples used about the Roman Empire are very good representation of the purposes for marraige.)
-
Just because I hate the fact that they seem to always be mentioned together I want to point out that pedophilia within homosexuality is proportionally the same as it is in heterosexuality. It just gets more attention on one end of the spectrum and is not a situationally exclusive occurrence.
While this is quite possibly true in modern times (I have seen no evidence one way or the other), this is definitely not true of ancient Greece. To talk about homosexuality in ancient Greece is to talk about pederasty, for the most part. So if you're trying to argue that homosexuals don't have more sex with children than non-homosexuals, don't use Greece as an example of a good, homosexually-tolerant country. :P
-
Socially and financially a heterosexual union has much more potential than a homosexual union.
This part of your post really stuck out. So your saying that just because a homosexual union has less potential than a heterosexual one, that's a good reason why it shouldn't happen? If so, then I must say that is ridiculous. Let's just say for a minute that it's true. Why should it make it any less legal? Because there is not enough "potential?" You'd deny PEOPLE happiness because their union doesn't have enough "potential?"
-
I'm not going to step in the debate here, but I would like to say that some of the Google ads that it "thinks" we want are just hilarious. I'm looking at two ads here, one that says "Gay and Lesbian Magazines" and the other that says "Meet Hot Gay Men".
Sometimes, it's just good comedy to look at the ads.
-
This part of your post really stuck out. So your saying that just because a homosexual union has less potential than a heterosexual one, that's a good reason why it shouldn't happen? If so, then I must say that is ridiculous. Let's just say for a minute that it's true. Why should it make it any less legal? Because there is not enough "potential?" You'd deny PEOPLE happiness because their union doesn't have enough "potential?"
I was more giving examples of how the unions are different (because people try to equate them) than giving actual reasons for denying 'rights'.
I am a stickler for nits and picking them. It is inherently flawed to argue that a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are the same. That is all I am saying. Love is not enough for the two types to be equal. There are real physiological, social, and finantial differences between the two unions. Those aren't necessarily reasons, but they should be looked at in a debate on what the government is willing to spend its money on. It basically comes down to money. The government encourages marriage finantially because the family is the core fundamental (social and finantial) unit of society. Not because two people love eachother. This is why potential comes into the equation. Not because the govenment is regulating morality.
-
Socially and financially a heterosexual union has much more potential than a homosexual union.
This part of your post really stuck out. So your saying that just because a homosexual union has less potential than a heterosexual one, that's a good reason why it shouldn't happen? If so, then I must say that is ridiculous. Let's just say for a minute that it's true. Why should it make it any less legal? Because there is not enough "potential?" You'd deny PEOPLE happiness because their union doesn't have enough "potential?"
This whole concept of 'potential' . . . . Uhm, socially it depends on where you live and who you associate with, so that argument a simple demographical argument that is easily avoided if someone has half a brain. Financially better? When was the last time you say a single gay man or lesbian woman with five kids and a minimum wage job? Also, gay "marriages" and relationships are empirically proven to last longer than those of average heterosexual ones.
-
This whole concept of 'potential' . . . . Uhm, socially it depends on where you live and who you associate with, so that argument a simple demographical argument that is easily avoided if someone has half a brain. Financially better? When was the last time you say a single gay man or lesbian woman with five kids and a minimum wage job? Also, gay "marriages" and relationships are empirically proven to last longer than those of average heterosexual ones.
Ahh... the old "crap-there-isn't-a-cogent-come-back-so-I'll-generalize-the-entire-thing-based-on-the-absolute-worst-case-scenario" argument. excellent...
-
(http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9893/gay000306marriageed01darl3.jpg)
Exactly.
Loud_G: You're absolutely right, it's not the same literally. But answer me this. Shouldn't that standard apply to everyone? Literally, a woman who is infertile and a man who is infertile cannot produce a child yet they can get married. What about elder marriages? Old people are really less likely, if at not at all, to bear children. Just because they can't, but they can still get married.
If homosexual marriage was so evil and corrupt, Massachusetts would have been destroyed already. Guess what, it hasn't. I know, I live there.
I do agree however that all the bad stuff that has happened to the churches shouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I am against anyone who uses violence/intimidation to get their point across. If homosexuals can get married in a specific place not of the church and are able to receive the same financial tax breaks that regular heterosexual couples can, why not?
Can Baptists determine if the Catholic church can make women priests? Then why do Baptists get to determine if Unitarians marry gay and lesbian parishioners?
-
I'm not saying that those are reason alone to ban gay marriage. I'm just saying all of it should be taken into account when discussion the subject. Many Private businesses are against it because it will affect their bottomline. Many lawmakers are against it because of legal ramifications. There is a lot to analyze when considering such a proposition.
It is not a clear cut case of "the people are suffering, lets ease their pain".
As for me personally....I'm leaning toward the side of "the federal government should butt out completely". Marriage is for church.
-
It shouldn't be taken into account though, since the same can be said of heterosexual couples. The minute it gets "taken into account," the homosexual debate is immediately handicapped. By the same logic, it should be brought up in a debate if two infertile people wish to marry as well.
There really are two marriages. One before your God and one recognized as a legal agreement by the state.
Now no one can deny a homosexual person the right to "marry" in their own church. That is, if the church they go to allows it. Like I said, I am against forcing say a Catholic church to marry homosexuals.
A state sanctioned "marriage" is nothing but a legal agreement that you will share in the burdens of the household. Denying a marriage license to homosexuals denies a lot of them certain benefits, whether it be tax breaks, joint health care, etc.
You're right, there is a lot to analyze before considering such a proposition. But while people analyze and argue, millions of people suffer because they are not afforded the same legal protections that marriage offers.
-
This thread was started in oposition to californias Proposition 8. I would like to state that the bill passed and Gay marrige is now illegal in California. Both Florida and I think Arizona pass similar bills denying gay marrige. I for one do not agree but can only think that there will be a time when things will change. Be a heterosexual male I feel bad that I dont want to ever be married but there are those out there who would love nothing more than to have the right.
-
Prop 102 did pass here in Arizona. I actually abstained from this part of the voting ballot. In my opinion it is impossible to make an informed decision on a bill/amendment when the reasons behind it have absolutely nothing to do with the physical law trying to be instated.
Equality and entitlement are not the same thing. Equality is something we as a human race should strive for. While the phrase, 'Treat everyone as you want to be treated' is a bit of a misnomer since not everyone wants or responds to the same variables, the sentiment is right on. Entitlements just come about as things people think they deserve because they are simply standing in one place as opposed to another.
-
Also, gay "marriages" and relationships are empirically proven to last longer than those of average heterosexual ones.
Miyabi, I've seen statistics that say the opposite, and a higher incidence of domestic violence as well. It's easy to talk about how studies have been done without giving any proof.
Can Baptists determine if the Catholic church can make women priests? Then why do Baptists get to determine if Unitarians marry gay and lesbian parishioners?
CthulhuKefka, is anyone doing that? This isn't about what churches do with their members. It's about legal recognition, what word is used to apply to that legal recognition, and how that word is defined.
Also, interracial marriages were never universally banned in the U.S. Quite a few states never had miscegenation laws, and many states repealed them in the 1800s. Society was not united on the issue, and where the laws were in effect, they made interracial marriage illegal and arrested those who practiced it. They didn't say it wasn't a marriage; they said it was an illegal marriage. There's a difference. The same-sex marriage issue is not the same. Same-sex marriage does not fit the definition of marriage universally historically accepted in our society. It was taken as a given that marriage included a man and a woman. The states still added on other restrictions after that, within their right to do so: 3. You can't marry someone who's too closely related to you. 4. You can't marry someone who's too young. 5. You can't marry someone who's currently married to someone else. 6. You can't marry someone if you are currently married to someone else. These are all restrictions to marriage rights which states have enacted with no problems.
But even before those 4 are the two inherent marriage rights restrictions that were taken as a given from the start. 1. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex from you. 2. You can only marry someone who agrees to marry you.
These six restrictions on marriage have been universally applied throughout the history of our country. There are minor variations on what "too young" or "too closely related," but all states have a set standard defining that. Mormons and other small groups tried breaking restrictions 5 and 6, but were rejected all the way to the Supreme Court. Societies that preceded ours did not always follow restriction 2, but it's been followed for several hundred years.
The granddaddy of them all is restriction 1, so much so that it's by default included in what the word "marriage" itself means. If you drop that restriction, you remove a large percentage of the significance of the word.
-
I wonder what the difference is between a marriage and a civil union? If a civil union affords the exact same rights as a marriage, then all that were previously stated as a "marriage" would be a civil union by government standards, and the word marriage would only apply to those who are married through their church. I understand that the bible frowns on homsexuality, but it also accused epiliptics as being possessed by the devil, and while I may feel that way about my wife sometimes, it is not actually true.
-
I can understand why most religious groups are vehemently against homosexual marriage, but I cannot understand their opposition to at least "civil unions." Let's say for a second that the religions get what they want and marriage is finally declared between a man and a woman only. They have their victory then. Their "traditional values and family" are intact. But it wouldn't stop there, would it? It would keep going until even homosexuals couldn't even get civil unions.
The whole point of this is to allow people that you probably don't even know or would even ever meet have the same rights and legal protections.
Here is a question. Say you know someone who is, in fact, gay. And let's just say something happens to their partner, but under current law, they are not granted the same rights. If their partner is lying in the hospital and they cannot even visit them before they die, you would be fine with this? Could you honestly, with a clear conscience stand in front of your friend after his partner dies and tell him nothings wrong?
-
I'm not against civil unions. I think I've said that in this thread. California has domestic partnerships which are already guaranteed the same rights as married couples such as hospital visitation, etc., which are rights that I am completely in favor of. The problem that some pro-gay people in California have with the domestic partnerships (which were not affected at all by prop 8) is that it seems like a "separate but equal" classification, which goes against the civil rights movement's ideals.
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's a distracting argument. Same-sex marriages are not the same as traditional marriages, so calling them by another word is appropriate.
-
I get it Ook. :)
All I really want is for all gay couples to receive the same legal protections everywhere that a heterosexual couple has. In my opinion, as long as they have that, they can call it whatever. :)
-
Agreed. It's great to fight for your rights, but you have to know when to stop pushing. If the door is unlocked, you don't need to kick it in just because the handle isn't the style you like. Compromise is not always a bad word. The gay community should meet us half way on this one.
-
I'm not against civil unions. I think I've said that in this thread. California has domestic partnerships which are already guaranteed the same rights as married couples such as hospital visitation, etc., which are rights that I am completely in favor of. The problem that some pro-gay people in California have with the domestic partnerships (which were not affected at all by prop 8) is that it seems like a "separate but equal" classification, which goes against the civil rights movement's ideals.
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's a distracting argument. Same-sex marriages are not the same as traditional marriages, so calling them by another word is appropriate.
Precisely!
-
Many people are opposed to giving homosexuals civil unions because it would increase the likelihood of spurious "civil unions" between roommates who are not in relationships and simply wish to get all of the perks (such as free healthcare) that come with being in a "civil union". I'm not entirely sure how valid of a concern this is (as heterosexuals may do the same thing, though it may be more difficult to do so socially in many areas), but it's one I've heard.
-
I've got no problem with that myself. If there are two people who are not sexually involved with each other but are confirmed bachelor/ettes and want to own property together and care about each other deeply, then let 'em. Actually, I don't think it's anyone's business whether two committed good friends are sexually involved or not.
Also, civil unions/domestic partnerships are, I believe, all-inclusive. They can apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
-
Talk at Brigham Young University by Robert George, professor at Princeton, On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government.
Makes clear the moral purposes of the government on abortion and gay rights issues. Excellent, intelligent, and fascinating talk.
http://www.byub.org/findatalk/details.asp?ID=5796 (off of http://www.byub.org/findatalk/default.asp)
(about 60 minutes long total, gay marriage commentary begins at about 22:00)