Gay Marriage

[J_Wales]

This is where things get sticky. I dislike solutions that pile one bad assumption on top of another.

The most common one I see goes like this: We can regulate health issues because we have a government healthcare program and poor health choices raise those costs for everyone.

I agree with you that if the government is going to allow one type of marriage to have special privileges, it should allow others to have them.

The problem is how sticky that gets. Can I marry my sister? Okay, anticipating the argument, can I marry her if one of us is sterile? Can I marry my brother? Can I marry two people?

If you agree with gay marriage in principle, that same principle argues that you can't discriminate against those other types of marriages.

I think rather than try to pile bad law on top of bad law it's cleaner to work for a policy that makes sense. Marriage is a private affair, contract disputes can be the business of the government.

Well said.

Over the years I have noticed a pattern that when government gets involved it tends to create more messes than solutions.

 

[thebishopp]

I just wish I could get a logical answer...

This. The fact is that there are more than just one "religion" on this earth. Some older than others. I say let "god" (whomever/whatever you deem that to be) do the "judging". Seems to me that he/it/whatever is probably a bit better qualified in this regard.

 

[NYFelon]

Interestingly, I was having a conversation about this just yesterday. I'm an agnostic, as I have said here before. However, I have read several religious texts for historical understanding, even portions of the Qu'Ran. It's my understanding that the proscription on homosexuality comes from the Old Testament, Leviticus - 18:22. I am unaware of it being in the New Testament. If it is, please let me know where so that I might familiarize myself.

Now, if the proscription comes from the Old Testament -The Hebrew Bible - and that is one's reason for calling homosexuality an abomination(18:22), do these same people follow all the other rules in Leviticus? Do you/they engage in sexual relations whilst during their girlfriend/wife's period?(18:19) Do you eat shellfish? Do you eat any other proscribed foods? (Chapter 11)

I only ask because it seems somewhat hypocritical to use one section but then entirely disregard another.

As far as the original question, I answered don't care. I think the U.S. has far bigger domestic fish to fry then worrying where and with whom her citizens engage in consensual sex.

 

[thebishopp]

Disclaimer: the following is an argument of logic, not religion.

THe only way your point is valid is if all religions are equally correct. But by definition they can't be. Assuming for the sake of argument the existence of a higher being (because without one, there wouldn't be a true religion), only one religion can be correct. By their nature they are all mutually exclusive.

Ergo, the argument that some allow it and some don't is inadequate to justify it's acceptability. It can only be justified according to the one true religion, whichever one that is.

So it's illogical to justify marriage between two people of the same sex based on religious acceptability unless you have evidence that the religion that accepts it is the one true religion.

On this point, I'm afraid, your argument is crap.

On the others, no such discussion is allowed. And even if it were, the two sides never start with the same premise anyway. Whether it's an issue of semantics or something much deeper, there is never going to be a meeting of the minds on defining marriage.

Gays went wrong with trying to co-opt the language. They'd have had a much better chance simply arguing that state-sanctioned unions disguised as marriages were nothing more than a contractual agreements between two parties and as such there was no legal basis to deny them the right to enter into such contracts with people of the same sex.

If you are referring to the term marriage as a "religious" one then the only way someone will know if their "marriage" is religiously valid is after they die and find out for sure if and when they face some type of "judgement".

While I do not know if we entirely agree on what the "correct" religion is or even if there is such a thing based on your current statement I would say that until a "correct" religion is determined beyond a "reasonable doubt" then we should scrap the term "marriage" altogether and call it something like civil union.

 

[thebishopp]

Government sanctioned marriage is a hold over Jim Crow law.

I find it ridiculous that gay people are begging to be treated like recently freed black slaves.

The idea that a person who is free needs government permission to get married is one of the many things wrong with this country.

As a free person you should have a Right to get married. A right that doesn't require going down to a courthouse and begging for a license like a slave or recently freed slave.

The idea is even more repugnant than firearms licenses.

Marriage should be kept OUT of government for strait or gay couples.

I certainly hope no one is stupid enough to say "what do we do if government doesn't issue licenses"... The same dang thing George Washington and Abe Lincoln did... they just fracking married and didn't beg permission from anyone.

I've given out too much rep recently to rep you.

 

[level.eleven]

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation.

His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final.

They’re laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won’t be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't understand the desire to be intimate with another man any more than I understand the desire to eat cow brains, but it doesn't bother me that others do it. As far as a state recognized marriage, why not? It comes down to people pushing their religious beliefs onto others. If you believe that a "marriage" is between a man and a woman because that's what your religion tells you, then that's just fine...for you. If others don't share those beliefs though, too bad. If a gay couple wants the state to legally recognize their union, then I say go for it. If it falls within that couple's belief system, then I say go for it. Bottom line, it's all about people pushing their religious beliefs onto others and wanting the state to back them up. If a gay couple gets "married" and you don't want to recognize it because of your religious beliefs then that's entirely up to you, they should be free to do what they want though and call it what they want. Whether they want to refer to the union of a gay couple as a "marriage," or "civil union," or whatever else, it's all up to the couple. A rose by any other name...

 

[Roadie]

Personally, the older I get, the less I am "against" gay marriage. There are way too many religious reasons behind my change of heart, but this thread is already dangerously close to, if not over, the threshold for an:

..situation due to the religious content...

I currently support the idea of "civil unions" more than I would "marriage".. The bottom line for me is, as long as Churches aren't forced to perform gay marriages against their beliefs, then I would be more tolerable of the concept.

 

[thebishopp]

No, that's not what I said. I said marriage had a specific definition. I also said that state-sanctioned legal unions are not marriage and should not discriminate based on the gender of the parties. Whether or not the parties are married is a matter of religious truth, not state approval.

...SNIP...

Ah Ok, I had a feeling this was where you were headed with your previous posts.

 

[thebishopp]

This is awesome.

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

It is against the law. The IC is quite clear on the matter that same sex marriage is PROHIBITED. That means it's against the law.

You're right. I guess I'm arguing semantics in an inappropriate way. I look at "against the law" as if I do it, there will be legal consequences/ramifications.

AFAIK, a church may perform a same-sex ceremony with no consequences to the church or the couple. That, of course doesn't mean anything other than the symbolism within that church.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[gungirl65]

Personally I view homosexuality like I view a lot of religions. As long as they are not sacrificing animals or people, I don't care what they do. Just do not try to convert me to your way of thinking or believing and we will get along just fine.

I know people who are gay & lesbian, they are just like the rest of us. I would trust them with my pets, children and even my own life. They are not immoral monsters, they are just people who can't help who they are attracted to.

We are all God's children. God does not make mistakes. Therefore I believe everyone should be treated how you would like to be treated regardless of religion or sexual preference.

 

[Sylvain]

Personally I view homosexuality like I view a lot of religions. As long as they are not sacrificing animals or people, I don't care what they do. Just do not try to convert me to your way of thinking or believing and we will get along just fine.

I know people who are gay & lesbian, they are just like the rest of us. I would trust them with my pets, children and even my own life. They are not immoral monsters, they are just people who can't help who they are attracted to.

We are all God's children. God does not make mistakes. Therefore I believe everyone should be treated how you would like to be treated regardless of religion or sexual preference.

I wish all "religious people" would think like that.

 

[gunman41mag]

Im all for it.
I dont see why gay couples shouldn't have the same rights as straight couples.
They are citizens like straight people, they pay the same taxes and yet they dont have the same rights.
Pursuit of happiness also applies to gay people, the constitution doesn't say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for straight people", they should be able to get married and live a family life.
Im straight and I have the freedom to marry any woman I want, why a gay man or woman shouldn't have the same freedom to marry the person they love?

So you don't have any problems with brother & sister or cousins, what about guys that want to marry their sheep, or guys that want more that one wife, cause they all pay taxes too

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

So you don't have any problems with brother & sister or cousins, what about guys that want to marry their sheep, or guys that want more that one wife, cause they all pay taxes too

Having a personal problem with something and agreeing that the government should have control over those actions are two different things.

No one says that you can't think it is wrong, but either way the feds shouldn't get involved.

 

[NYFelon]

1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 are two commonly cited examples.

Thank you. I will check those right now.

 

[Denny347]

So you don't have any problems with brother & sister or cousins, what about guys that want to marry their sheep, or guys that want more that one wife, cause they all pay taxes too

Consenting adults, I could CARE LESS!!!! Gross? Yes. Lift Gov restrictions and I do not see a rash of people marrying their mom/sisters. Last I looked, and animal is not a consenting adult.

 

[spasmo]

This will remain open as long as religion discussions remain out of it and that means quoting scripture as well. So please keep religion out of it. A few posts have been removed already but we will close it if need be.

 

[NYFelon]

This will remain open as long as religion discussions remain out of it and that means quoting scripture as well. So please keep religion out of it. A few posts have been removed already but we will close it if need be.

apologies, as I believe I was the one who first did so. My intent wasn't to begin a religious discussion, but instead to find the basis of religious opposition.

 

[gungirl65]

My problem with organized religion

I think it is wrong for any religion to promote hate in the name of their God. My God would never agree to crazy church followers attending the funerals of fallen soldiers and harassing the grief stricken families to promote their belief that the soldiers deserved to die because of the existence of homosexuality.

I believe in God but I do not participate in mainstream church services due to the hypocrisy of many church followers. Kindness & compassion should be for every day use, not just Sunday when others are watching. I do not trust people who spend their weekdays sinning and then act like alter boys /girls on Sunday. These same people also want us to believe they are holier than we are. Surely they will flourish in Heaven while we all burn in eternal damnation. I am the same person on Sunday that I am the rest of the week. Can they say the same?

I was raised Methodist but have attended services for several different denominations throughout the years. A Methodist minister told me one time that he knew you could still worship God while fishing on a Sunday morning instead of attending church services. The concept of acceptance without having to put on a show truly did sell me on the Methodist religion.

In High School I rode the big blue Union Chapel Baptist church bus to Marion 2 to 3 times a week to worship with my friends. I don't remember much about the Bible lessons. What I do remember is the promotion of the fear of going to hell to control the sheeple. We were all bad & we were all going to go to hell no matter what we did. I personally was going to hell not because I was evil but because I wore make-up, did my hair and wore pants.

So if I am going to hell I am going to enjoy the ride getting there. I may even hang out with my gay & lesbian friends. Maybe we can carpool to hell together.

Just my