A Question About Same Sex Marriage

[Xanadu84]

Marriage is an institution in our world, and to reflect that need for the institution, the government offered certain legal rights to married couples. It was completely sensible. And the simplest way to do this was to just have the state recognize marriages that were already happening everywhere, and all was fine. The problem is that states were recognizing a religious institution, and over time, that became muddled. Now, it is completely reasonable for the government to recognize gay marriages in that same spirit. However, suddenly there's this awkward relationship between the church institution and the state institution that was completely harmless until people started acknowledging the existence of gay people. And some powerful christian lobbies start to feel like the institutions are one in the same. Truth be told, there should be a civil marriage and a religious marriage, and the church can call marriage whatever the hell they want. Even let churches keep the term marriage, and call all state sanctioned marriages civil unions, but it seems like that ship has sailed.

Two things though. One, Gay Marriage will be universal in America. It's inevitable, and already exists in some of the better states. People who say otherwise are deluding themselves. Two, there are churches fine with homosexuality. Hell, the church I grew up said that they would marry gay couples before Gay Marriage was legal in ANY state.

 

[Xanadu84]

i think gays would have an easier time getting equal rights if they didn't try for marriage. all you need to do is add another option. lets call it gayrriage, basically it's exactly the same as marriage but has a different name so churches can't complain.

Hahaha, can you pass me the keys? I want to put my car in the gayrriage. Teehee. Okay that's probably not as funny as I think it is.

Anyway, as long as there's a different name for their union a gay couple will always have a different status to a straight couple. It validates and codifies discrimination.

And that's bad.

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.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Because marriage is both a religious and political institution in the US. In a true separation of church and state, the concept of marriage wouldn't even exist in politics. Marriage is a religious institution. Since the state does have some hand in the workings of marriage, legal matters for issues like tax and property, etc, there is a conflict where both religious and political groups want to define and control marriage.

Personally I think we could solve this whole thing by changing our grammar so the church has control over its word and the political realm uses some other term (the church is older then the US it gets dibs on the word). Then the church can exclude anyone it wants and the politicians can redefine their version of marriage however they want and nobody steps on the other's toes. (Similar to how a church can choose to accept to kick out anyone it wants since its a private institution).

 

[manic_depressive13]

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.

 

[Aerodyamic]

The Bible does indeed say that the act of homosexuality is wrong, but it also says that God loves all of his children. The Bible also says that all humans are equally sinful and have "all fallen short of the glory of God". So next time some idiot tells you that "God hates gays", punch them in the face, because there's nothing that suggests that. I'm Christian and I don't believe that forcing or stopping people from doing what they want is right, because freedom is a right not a privilege. The Bible even says that. Your friends need to realize that it's not their place to judge and prevent other people's freedom. God will deal with them if he wants to. I have many gay friends that I'd never think of mistreating/judging.

The Bible only has one verse that relates to homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22, and according to http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm, there's 17 variations of that particular verse, making me wonder what the original verse actually was. Also, if anyone wants to argue about the Sin of Onan, don't bother; Onan was punished for failing to impregnate his dead brother's wife. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Realistically, if anyone wants to get married, and both (or all parties) are capable of informed consent, and are aware of the legal implications of a marriage/civil union, let 'em at it.

honestly, you should not recieve any rights/privledges for getting married (as in the specific event). Back then, they probably thought tying marriage to the government was harmless, and for a long time it was. Now with the benefit of hindsight....

We should probably keep marriage as a strictly religious event that the government has no say in, but it no longer grants benefits/rights (like for a Christian example, communion or baptism. Strictly a religious event that has no bearing whatsoever on the government). If you want the benefits of being a "couple" you have to jump through some standardized hoops like living in a shared household, shared bank account, and being together for X years regardless of the makeup of said couple.

Then the government can wash its hands with the whole marriage thing. People will have the exact same rights regardless of makeup, and traditionalists get to keep...well their traditions. Everyone wins.

As it stands right now, either the government will have to impose its will upon religion, which is wrong, or vice versa which is also wrong. The only real moral solution in my eyes is to remove religion and state from the same race (which is what we are supposed to do)

+1. Just +1.

 

[Asita]

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.

 

[BringBackBuck]

I don't see what the big deal is about same sex marriage. The missus and I have been having the same sex for years...

(sorry - couldn't resist it)

OT: USA - sucks to be you. New Zealand is just getting it's shit together in respect to gay marriage, backed by overwhelming support from the public and members of parliament.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-30/an-nz-parliament-gives-strong-support-to-same-sex-marriage/4232162

 

[Ieyke]

I won't say you're necessarily friends with the "wrong" people (I'm in a generous mood from the "love" thread), but you're certainly friends with people who can't follow through on simple logic.

You are absolutely correct in that there should be no impact from religion on the legality of marriage.

Moreover, even if we were foolish enough to say it SHOULD, what basis does any given religion have to say that THEIR views of marriage should be the ones to govern the legal issues of marriage.
Basically EVERY religion has rules regarding marriage, and they're not all even REMOTELY the same.

How do these Christian fundamentalist assholes (I have nothing against Christians in general, just the ones who think they're the center of the universe) come to the conclusion that their religion might somehow be more important than every other religion in a country where the primary founding force was none other than FREEDOM OF RELIGION and SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!????

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,?as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],?and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- John Adams - The Treaty Of Tripoli: Article 11

 

[NortherWolf]

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.

Do tell that to your fellow Christians, seems they didn't get the memo. Because last time I checked the Old Testament and the New Testament came in a collectors Edition called the bible and people tend to take them as one book.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I can not understand the viewpoint of anyone who is opposed to gay marriage. If they want to get married then why stop them?

 

[Entitled]

Homophobia being a religious issue is a total red herring.

It's a liberal/conservative issue, and since conservative people are more likely to be religious, they are also more likely to make up a religious rhetoric for their claims.

Just look at other parallel issues, of which the Bible doesn't explicitly say anything about. With abortion, or euthanasia, there is only "Thou shalt not kill", that we can all agree with and follow, yet somehow religious conservatives pretend that they have some super-special moral code with God directly telling them to stop abortion, while neither atheists nor liberal Christians define killing that way.

Or look at the amounts of non-religious and lapsed-religious conservatives, who are still opposed to gay marriage, even without believing a Bible, just because it is "unnatural". Look at entire countries doing just that.

It's the same with gays. If that law wouldn't be there in Leviticus, American conservatives would just find some random line where some random marriage is described as consisting of a husband and wife, so they could keep pandering to their religious subcommunity. And if their religious subcommunity wouldn't be there, they would find other emotions to pander to.

 

[Agow95]

I think that no-one should live by most of the rules laid down by men who said that in the following cases you should be put to death.
Lying about being a virginity
Practising prostitution and being a daughter of a priest
Being raped and not marrying the rapist
And women who get raped in a city during their engagement, while if you were raped in a field they would get to live because no-one would have heard your screams, but I assume they would still have to marry the rapist or die.
Seriously, people worship the guy who made these rules.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

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.

What church? Protestants marry, jews marry, catholics marry, atheists marry, buhhdists marry, mormons marry, ect ect. It depends on the culture whether religion is largely incorporated into marriage tradtion, but marriage unions are secular things that churches simply support. If marriage is religious then why are people of every diffrent religion, even ones that have no explicit marriage rules, allowed to marry?

 

[lemby117]

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.

Well why are churches exempt from our rules? If a church said it would not marry blacks would we have to accept that? What if a shop refused to serve gay people? That would be illegal right? So why do the church get a free pass?

OT: It is ridiculous that we even have to have this debate. Unless Gay people can marry then it is unequal and civil unions are effectively equal but separate and comparable to segregation.

 

[verdant monkai]

You skipped over all the craziest stuff, like rape victims being either executed (it counts as adultry if you are married) or have the rapist pay your father some money then marry you (can't have non-virgins who aren't married can we?) Plus all the passages about how to conduct war against non-believers including give them the option to surrender, and if they do enslave them all and if they don't invade, gather all the people, kill all the men and non-virgin women, then take the women as slaves, and possibly wives, then loot the city, then burn it to the hround.

Well I didn't fancy going there but yeah basically, the Bible is half Psychopaths guide on how to not fit in with today's society, and half how to let people take advantage of you. For example Jesus' general procedure for being attacked is to not in any way resist and give your attacker everything on you. And the sickening thing is Christians say the bible doesn't contradict its self.

Dont get me wrong the teachings of Jesus are great and have a lot of merit, its just that human beings are not capable of this sort of omnibenevolent behaviour. I understand that is one of Christianity's big things you aren't good enough but Jesus was try to be like him and worship him because God loves you, its just not for everyone.

I'm an agnostic but I am not to fond of the idea of living my life through a book written hundreds of years ago in a society that has drastically moved on. It saddens me when people like teh gays are discriminated against using a book that is out of date and only referenced when it is seen to support the childish desire to make everyone conform.

 

[verdant monkai]

but the genital mutilation is quick to be ignored,

uhhh... no it's not. Over 50% of the US population is non-theraputically circumcised at birth and from previous years the majority of the population in general (Males only of course, women don't suffer circumcision) are already circumcised.

Wow really 50%? I'm not calling you a liar I just think you are wrong, but I don't live in the U.S

Could you provide a source for this claim and do you know if it is for religious or medical reasons?

 

[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.