More Gay Marriage?

[JRE 0]

One of the following is a choice: Being black, being gay, being religious.

 

For the 8-millionth time, nobody is arguing against religion. Yes it is completely irrational and often dangerous, but I am not advocating for its termination. Organized religion, however, is arguing vehemently to deny certain rights for certain individuals based on a difference. Again, that is the problem. This is not religion vs. atheism. It is not moral vs. immoral. This is allowing people to live their lives freely vs. my feelings are really touchy so certain people cant do certain things even if it never once actually impacts me or my family in an actually negative way.

 

 

Snuffbox, my argument is that a long-term effect of legalizing same sex marriage threatens religious freedom. What's needed is a compromise. I am against denying certain rights to individuals based on difference- just as you are. I understand that many in organized religion argue against gay marriage based on reasons that are discriminatory- I do not agree with any one being so blatantly hateful....but many in organized relegion are simply trying to protect their own rights to worship freely. Again- I feel because marriage is so closely tied to religion that long-term effects of legalizing same-sex marriage will threaten religious freedom. I want government to protect the rights of both sides. I hope you don't see anything hateful in that.

 

Also, being black is not a choice. The other two are very debatable. Let's not get into that- I'll just say that at this point in life I cannot choose to not be religious....and not because of anyone but myself. The fact is that there are many religious US citizens AND many gay US citizens. And a lot of black citizens too.

[Lei Tong 0]

Can you actually specify what the long term threats to religious freedom are from gay marriage? It all seems very vague.

 

Also, the idea that one can choose whether or not to be homosexual, straight, or anything in between is preposterous.

[JRE 0]

Can you actually specify what the long term threats to religious freedom are from gay marriage? It all seems very vague.

 

Also, the idea that one can choose whether or not to be homosexual, straight, or anything in between is preposterous.

 

I don't think so. I'm sure there are many homosexuals that are simply oriented that way- yes. But a lot of the time people do make the choice to experiment..or...like...rebel against their parents. I dunno.

 

As for the first question: look at the adoption situation- not the perfect example, but an example. The bishops could not continue the adoption service because their religious practices now violated anti-discriminatory laws. Where do many marriage ceremonies happen? Churches. People have priests perform marriage services. Are there religious homosexuals? Yes there are. So what if a church won't marry them? Suddenly this church will be violating the law too? For sticking to their beliefs? The LDS church members contributed significantly to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. You know what the highest ordinance in the church is? Marriage. Marriage in their temples..the entering of which requires very strict moral standards in accordance with their beliefs. They'd be pissed if those temples had to be shut down, ya know? Next- tax exemptions and benefits will be taken away from churches that won't accept same-sex marriage. Here we'll have discrimination based on teachings of different churches. And then there's schools....which I guess is just kind of parents bickering because the definition of marriage will now be a union of two people instead of a union between a man and a woman.....simply conflicting with what students are taught in church and at home. It all might be a lot of bickering- but it would be unfortunate if such religious people were forced out of public schooling over the whole thing. This is all just brainstorming....I'm sure there's holes in the argument....but not enough to invalidate everything I just said.

 

I dunno.... marriage is just very closely tied with religion and it creates the potential for all of these conflicts. This doesn't mean that the rights that come with marriage should not be available for gays.....so, I'll say again- government needs to provide a compromise that will give rights to gay couples without threatening free religious worship and practice.

[snuffbox 0]

Nope, there's not really any debate room on that one, sorry. You are born with your skin, you are born with your sexual preference, you can choose to believe in a talking snake.

[snuffbox 0]

You don't decide to enjoy another man's cock in your BUTT (or vice versa) to rebel against your parents. Dont be an idiot.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I don't think so. I'm sure there are many homosexuals that are simply oriented that way- yes. But a lot of the time people do make the choice to experiment..or...like...rebel against their parents. I dunno.

 

Seriously?...

 

Myself and many I've spoken to have known since we were kids that we liked the same sex (in my case that I liked both sexes). I've known since I was 8 and probably had a sense even earlier.

 

Do some people experiment? Sure. Some are attracted to a person, have sex, and sometimes that person finds out they like the person but not to the point of utilizing sex as part of it.

 

If it was a choice, reformed homosexuals wouldn't be forced to succumb to psychology/therapists to "change" back. Not to mention, if it was an easy choice, who would choose to be persecuted against, ridiculed, or possibly even killed just because of who they have sex with?

[Lei Tong 0]

I'm mostly for government staying out of people's private affairs, so long as they aren't causing harm to other people. Because of that, I truly don't care if certain churches choose not to perform gay marriages. The adoption agency story is a bit harder for me to pick a side on, because while it's easy to say that a gay couple could simply use a different agency, when taking into consideration the child's welfare, the question arises of whether it'd be to their benefit to go with a gay couple who happens to be the best match for them (or even the only one that wants them). However, I think simply outlawing gay marriage is a shitty place to draw the line, as it seems far too preemptive in trying to address future concerns. When those issues that can actually effect someone's religious beliefs comes up, the arguments can be handled at that time.

 

Also, while people often choose to experiment to with their sexuality in many ways, the argument that someone who is strictly or mostly gay/straight has any choice in the matter has lost it legs over the past couple of decades. I've personally known quite a few people who would have LOVED to be able change their sexual orientation to save themselves from things such as ridicule, emotional confusion and trauma or even ostracization from their families because they're gay. As it is, it's not something they have control over, nor is it something for which they should be discriminated against.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

I agree that religion and marriage are intertwined, but you can't wrap your mind the fact that marriage in the eyes of government is not religious. You get a marriage license your state, not a church. No gay persons is going to force the Mormon, Catholic etc. Church to have them married in their church. The civil rights of the religious is not the one in question. The rights of the religious were not infringed in any way when gay marriage was legal in California last year.

 

Again marriage in the eyes of the government is not religious. The government gives couples a marriage license, not your church.

[snuffbox 0]

If particular churches choose not to perform gay marriages, that's fine. There would be plenty of other churches/courthouses/etc to choose from.

 

One point that I do plan to make, repeatedly, on my "Church Tour" is that religious people will have to make a choice between two favored talking points. One avenue of curtailing the number of abortions in this country is by making the adoption process simpler/cheaper. An avenue to increasing the number of adoptions is to allow gay couples to do so. The choice will be between "sanctity of life" and "icky gay people," and I am very interested to see the results of this.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You don't decide to enjoy another man's cock in your BUTT (or vice versa)...

 

Another man's BUTT in your cock?

[JRE 0]

Nope, there's not really any debate room on that one, sorry. You are born with your skin, you are born with your sexual preference, you can choose to believe in a talking snake.

 

 

I don't believe in a talking snake and I'm religious. I don't believe in talking clouds either.

 

Two, I'm not an idiot for saying that people choose to be gay when they aren't really oriented that way. I am sure that most are homosexual because of genetics. I am not denying that. But I am also positive that some are living gay life styles based on social factors. I don't mean to offend anyone with that or deny snuffbox's really poetic words....I just kinda look at Hollywood and to me it seems apparent that a social influence is there. Nevertheless- arguing over this subject is not applicable to how they should be governed- as I believe that religious rights should be protected when they are obviously not based on genetics.

 

I also know how marriage licenses work- being married. You get the license from the state and you take it to whatever courthouse or church you choose to get married by someone authorized to do so. What if a gay couple takes it to a church that won't marry them? There is a gay Mormon group. Ideally, a gay couple would just go to a place that would marry them- but we know there's going to be civil rights lawsuits and all of that....

 

Now, when gay marriage becomes a civil right....and I do believe it will- there will be laws that protect the civil rights of gay couples (and rightfully so)...these laws will conflict with religious freedom....I think that is very clear. That's the only point I want to get across really. And I don't even mean to say that gay marriage should not happen because of that....I just feel it's unjust to think that religion is "against giving rights to gays just because it's a sin." They have other reasons.

[ZGangsta 0]

Can you actually specify what the long term threats to religious freedom are from gay marriage? It all seems very vague.

 

Also, the idea that one can choose whether or not to be homosexual, straight, or anything in between is preposterous.

 

I don't think so. I'm sure there are many homosexuals that are simply oriented that way- yes. But a lot of the time people do make the choice to experiment..or...like...rebel against their parents. I dunno.

One of the more retarded statements in this thread.

This really illustrates how completely wrong people from that side of the argument percieve sexuality. You know, it's something 'bad' that people do rather than an aspect of a person. That's why its always interesting that so many high profile religious/conservative leaders get caught engaging in behaviors that they claim are deviant, and then can instantly "redeem" themselves by asking for forgiveness. Like Ted Haggard: "I'm not gay, I've just fucked men for years."

 

Are all these middle aged couples, who have been in monogamous relationships for decades and want to get married "experimenting?"

I really feel sorry for gay people when I read stuff like this. I mean, how hard must it be to live your whole life a certain way, knowing that's just the way you are, and then have people tell you "oh, well you must be rebelling against your parents" or some stupid shit along those lines.

 

I dunno.... marriage is just very closely tied with religion and it creates the potential for all of these conflicts. This doesn't mean that the rights that come with marriage should not be available for gays.....so, I'll say again- government needs to provide a compromise that will give rights to gay couples without threatening free religious worship and practice.

Oh for God's sake. 2 people who happen to be the same gender going down to the courthouse and getting married is NOT going to 'threaten free religious worship and practice.'

Book says no sex before marriage. People can legally have sex before they're married. Has that threatened free religious worship and practice? No.

Book says you can sell your daughter as a slave. Laws say you can't. Has that threatened free religious worship and practice? No.

 

So how is letting people of the same sex get married different than all the other laws that contradict religion?

[JRE 0]

"One of the more retarded statements in this thread.

This really illustrates how completely wrong people from that side of the argument percieve sexuality. You know, it's something 'bad' that people do rather than an aspect of a person. That's why its always interesting that so many high profile religious/conservative leaders get caught engaging in behaviors that they claim are deviant, and then can instantly "redeem" themselves by asking for forgiveness. Like Ted Haggard: 'I'm not gay, I've just fucked men for years.'"

 

"Are all these middle aged couples, who have been in monogamous relationships for decades and want to get married 'experimenting?'"

"I really feel sorry for gay people when I read stuff like this. I mean, how hard must it be to live your whole life a certain way, knowing that's just the way you are, and then have people tell you "oh, well you must be rebelling against your parents" or some stupid shit along those lines"

 

Did I say that all gay couples were experimenting or rebelling? No. I didn't even mean to apply that to the majority of gay couples. Just meant it happens. And the parents thing was meant to be light hearted....sorry I struck a nerve. How many times have I said that gays should have rights in this thread? Sheesz.

 

 

"Oh for God's sake. 2 people who happen to be the same gender going down to the courthouse and getting married is NOT going to 'threaten free religious worship and practice.'

Book says no sex before marriage. People can legally have sex before they're married. Has that threatened free religious worship and practice? No.

Book says you can sell your daughter as a slave. Laws say you can't. Has that threatened free religious worship and practice? No.

 

So how is letting people of the same sex get married different than all the other laws that contradict religion?"

 

Having sex does not compare to getting married. Marriage is a unique topic in that it is legal contract and very often a religious service. The daughter/slave things warrants no comment since this isn't a religion theology thread.

 

EDIT: Just gonna throw this in again since it's really my only point:

 

Now, when gay marriage becomes a civil right....and I do believe it will- there will be laws that protect the civil rights of gay couples (and rightfully so)...these laws will conflict with religious freedom....I think that is very clear. That's the only point I want to get across really. And I don't even mean to say that gay marriage should not happen because of that....I just feel it's unjust to think that religion is "against giving rights to gays just because it's a sin." They have other reasons regarding protecting civil rights for everybody.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

Again though, you can't seem to separate marriage in the eyes of religion and and marriage in the eyes of the law. Marriage, more often than not, takes place in a religious setting. No debate there. There is no law requiring private institutions to perform gay marriages, that I know of. Thats fine too. Private institutions can discriminate all they want. I'm cool with that, also.

 

What about marriages that aren't preformed in churches? That have no religious meaning. Like getting married in front of a judge in court. Would getting married in court, threaten the religious? No, right?

 

 

[JRE 0]

Again though, you can't seem to separate marriage in the eyes of religion and and marriage in the eyes of the law. Marriage, more often than not, takes place in a religious setting. No debate there. There is no law requiring private institutions to perform gay marriages, that I know of. Thats fine too. Private institutions can discriminate all they want. I'm cool with that, also.

 

What about marriages that aren't preformed in churches? That have no religious meaning. Like getting married in front of a judge in court. Would getting married in court, threaten the religious? No, right?

 

 

I think we've found common ground here. Marriage needs to be separated in the eyes of religion and in the eyes of the law. Every step needs to be taken to protect the rights of both sides. That whole Boston/adoption thing wasn't a very promising event.

[ZGangsta 0]

Now, when gay marriage becomes a civil right....and I do believe it will- there will be laws that protect the civil rights of gay couples (and rightfully so)...these laws will conflict with religious freedom....I think that is very clear.

So in other words you're worried that when gay marriage is legalized, people will start bringing legal action against churches that don't allow gay weddings.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

And those hypothetical lawsuits should fail. There is no expectation that any Private Institution should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. Most supporters of gay marriage support that concept.

 

The problem is when we start to legislate one's personal beliefs to prevent a group from enjoying a set of rights. It goes both ways too. I'm a relapsed Catholic, as my worldview has dramatically shifted from the Church's, but I understand why there so is much consternation on that side. I don't want to force Churches to perform marriages.

 

But my friend, who is a lesbian, doesn't want to get married in the Catholic Church or Mormon Church. She just wants the government to recognize her and her partner as equally as the government would look upon straight couples. She doesn't want a civil union or anything less. She just wants to be fucking married to the person she loves. Who are we as society, to deny anybody the right to marry their loved one!

[Gary Floyd 0]

You don't decide to enjoy another man's cock in your BUTT (or vice versa) to rebel against your parents.

It'd be funny if someone did though.

[Brett Favre 0]

talking snake talking snake talking snake talking snake talking snake talking snake

[snuffbox 0]

It's actually in the Bible, which is the basis for most of the anti-gay bigotry. It's either the word of your god or it's not.

[Brett Favre 0]

I can't help you if you don't know what to take and not to take literally.

[909 0]

Rather than continuing to post talking snake talking snake talking snake talking snake over and over and over and over and over again, snuffy can point out where it says that we are supposed to worship it and follow it as our God. And I'm only saying that because it is beginning to become a detriment to discussion.

 

kplzthx

[snuffbox 0]

The Bible is no longer the presiding document of the Christian Church?

[snuffbox 0]

Considering that the anti-gay side has not been able to muster a single legitimate reason for their stance, and 909 appears ready to prove his Mod Manhood, I'm done here.

[909 0]

Oh trust me, I'm not about to do anything. But rather than running away like a bitch, you can point out where it says that we are supposed to worship the snake rather than repeating the same thing over and over again, unchecked by anyone. Now that someone confronts you about it (and unfortunately not very many people are going to say anything, because you are just going to repeat the same shit over and over again as if you're continually copying and pasting it from other posts rather than wasting time typing it more than once), you run away like a coward rather than argue whatever point it is that you're trying to make? I'm just pointing out how fucking lame that is.

[snuffbox 0]

It's in the book. The book is the word of your god. Or, is it hit/miss? I'm not the one who has to defend the snake. You reached for the first straw-man you could find and it failed. If you can come up with ONE legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage rights, I'd like to read it. But, after this and several earlier threads, I know that simply will not come from your end. You decided, instead, that you could focus on my dismissal of your religion(the organized entity most at fault for this disgusting problem of bigotry)'s signature book as a means of attack. This isn't a fight. Again, it is not about religion vs. atheism. It is about whether certain peoples' tender feelings can be used to justify the denial of rights to certain other individuals.

 

When I talk about the talking snake, etc, I am reiterating that the Christian Bible is NOT, ever, and adequate reasoning for any law. Now, with your straw-man torn down, can you please find something non-Biblical and non-"its icky" to defend the point actually being discussed in this thread or is that an impossibility?

[snuffbox 0]

That's the great thing about being right on an issue and knowing it. I don't have to make anything up or call anybody a coward to defend it. I can genuinely defend my standpoint.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I can't help you if you don't know what to take and not to take literally.

 

Ignoring the "talking snake" part... this is my big issue with the Bible in a nutshell. I understand the church fear aspect but what I don't get is something like the above comment.

 

People use the "man shall not lie with man" line and take that literally in terms of opposition but then say to not take the stoning the daughter literally or certain acts literally.

 

As Snuffbox has said... it's either the word of your God or not. You can't say what to take literally or not because if you don't take something literally, then why should we believe you when you take something else written literally?

[Brett Favre 0]

Take the laws literally, and the lessons are important obviously. It's not that difficult.

[snuffbox 0]

If you get to pick & choose the "word of God," why don't you just live up to your human capacities and hold your own moral standards? If the "word" is so contradictory and contrived, how can it also be "all knowing"? But, I can't legitimately defend the nonsense and that's why I choose not let its muddled tenets lead my life.