A Question About Same Sex Marriage

[manic_depressive13]

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

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

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

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

 

[Moderated]

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


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

 

[Vivi22]

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

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

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

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

 

[Bruenin]

snip

snip

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

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

Marriage isn't only a religious thing

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

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

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

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

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

 

[Olas]

It can pretty much be chalked up to

[HEADING=2]

MARRIAGE

IS[/HEADING][HEADING=1]

WEIRD!!![/HEADING]​

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

 

[Palademon]

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

 

[bobajob]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jacco]

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

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

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

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

 

[Henkie36]

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

 

[thethird0611]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage is not the same as a union.

But yeah, +1 for you man.

 

[chipshop hendrix]

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

 

[Hagi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HoneyVision]

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

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

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

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

Wow, you must be very good at jumping conclusions.
When did I say anything about not believing in the Old Testament? I said that a large majority of the rules from it were made redundant in the New Testament. The ones that were kept were reinstated. The OT SHOULD be taken seriously by believers, but only in contrast and comparison with the NT, never on its own. Like you say, you can't cherry pick.
What does Creation have to do with it? That's not a rule, that's just part of the philosophy.

 

[blazearmoru]

It has to do with the notion of belief as well as social interaction. You should ask a psychologist and a sociologist about human behavior if you want the exact answer along with evidence to back it up. I have some understanding on this subject, but not nearly sufficient to call it anything but speculation on my part. Since you are able to ask this question, your mind is probably of a different quality than others. Don't waste it! :3

Edit : If you don't have anyone to ask, read up on them. Also law and the legal system is complex too. That stuff doesn't interest me much so I forgot to mention them earlier. XD

Edit 2: By the way, discretely ask your christian friends if they read the bible from cover to cover. :3

 

[viranimus]

Where is separation of church and state? Ask gay rights advocates using legislation and judges to alter and control religion.

What you are looking for is Laïcité, the inability for religion to have any presence,influence or control in governmental affairs. Secular bigotry.(oxymoron?) Separation of church and state is just another of the many things in this world people will hide behind vehemently and not understand what it means or how it works.

 

[Abomination]

Because the United States just isn't prepared to admit it's a theocracy.

Every single president and nominee with a chance at winning has been a Christian.

Presently it is a requirement to be Christian in order to hold the highest office in the United States, not by law but by the tyranny of the majority.

On the bright side, a lot of those people are getting older and dying and the number of non-theists or tolerant-theists has increased substantially in the last 10 years. Give it another generation or two and you'll start to see proper, rational political debate that isn't stymied in terrible religious dogmatic rhetoric.

I think it'd make for a better world if we did away with the word "Christian" and re-embraced the denominations like Protestant, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Mormon. Then Christians could discover what it is like not having a default majority and be forced to learn to compromise once more.

 

[Brandon237]

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

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

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

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

Difference is, tolerating intolerance leads to equal rights being withheld indefinitely. We condemn them for their views because when they enforce their views (and I would assume your views too, otherwise you would not defend this) a whole segment of the population is being dehumanised (by denying a right that the majority do have, for reasons that are fickle and have more to do with personal mindset than actual secular reasons) and not getting access to tax breaks, legal advantages or state recognition of the validity of their relationship that straight couples can get.

If your reasons are legitimate to you, fine, but the moment you try to get those reasons into policy you can and WILL get called out on your actions and beliefs that seriously hurt a group of the population who have done nothing to deserve such legal and societal scorn.

Yes, live and let live does go both ways, and I will call out any intolerance such as this which does not allow innocent people to live with equal rights and opportunities.

 

[Xanadu84]

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

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

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

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

I think you underestimate just how much of the religious rights bitching is based on trivial, semantic bullshit. Sure your not going to make Civil Unions and suddenly have a gay pride parade on every street corner in Mississippi, but by clearly delineating a difference between legal contract and a sticky social and religious institution, you force people to argue about basic human rights granted by the state, and not a term steeped in religious and cultural significance. Because the government shouldn't be involved in those religious and cultural judgement, and it seems that the only way to make that break known is by separating the terminology.

The real fight here is to get gay couples the legal rights that are afforded to straight couples. And there is a wealth of legal rights that the state is involved in, from divorce to taxes to social security benefit to hospital visitation to adoption...the list goes on. And we should divorce those legal rights from a social construct.

Of course we arn't going to. We are on the road to gay marriage or segregation, and eventually it will come up gay marriage. And, well, I'm pretty much fine with that...its the unnecessarily difficult way to do things but in the end, it will be fine.

 

[Brainwreck]

'In God we trust.'
Really. It's right there in the subtitle.
I think there's also supposed to be something about justice in there.