|
This was a reply I PM'd to an OP of another thread, because it had reached 9 pages and had completely derailed. I think this deserves its own blog. This isn't about gay marriage or gay adoption. It's about the movements in California and Florida where people are actively passing laws to make sure gays can't have the same legal privileges as straights when it comes to what legal rights they have for their chosen partnership--with the government saying, "boys, you can only do that with someone who has girl parts." Or, "that's not a real marriage you queers, it's a queeriage." I don't think this should be the business of the government due to the separation of church and state, the freedom of religion, and the principle that say that we don't treat people differently under the law. If you think being gay is a choice then it isn't treating them differently, but that tangent aside (doesn't matter for the argument below), the government shouldn't have any laws about marriage or give benefits for it, especially marriage as Christians view it: it legitimizes one belief in marriage over another--one religious belief:
For Christians, marriage is a specifically religious thing. While history may go back further than Christianity, there can be no doubt that in the west since the dominance of Christianity, marriage has been a religious act for the west, and for Christians it remains a religious act by and large.
However, the government has gotten into the business of using marriage as a legal status. This alone should have offended Christians. It threatens the meaning of marriage for them. The government should have avoided the term, but instead they have acted as an agency that legitimizes marriage, by making them official and even offering benefits, rewards, and special rights for the married.
Clearly they should not be doing this on the basis of "real" marriage as Christians see it. It's an unfortunate turn that they use the same word at all. They should have called it "civil unions" from the start--instead the government has gotten into the business of marriage, which is religious for many people--the reason why people now feel that the government has to have their religions' definition of marriage. But that's just unfortunate.
Maybe they thought at the time they started using "marriage" in the tax codes and in laws that say who gets deported and whatnot, that people could distinguish between legal marriage and sacred marriage, that the two don't have to be the same thing. But obviously most people are just too stupid, and too offended that the government could use a term in a different way than their particular faith.
So I think you are right that religious freedom should strike the word marriage from government use--others should be free to marry as they wish. And on the other hand, we should not be handing out rights and privileges--nor taking them away-- based on religion or sexuality--that's seriously fucked up, to do so.
Makes all the people voting to do this, look VERY VERY bad.
  
|
[B]But obviously most people are just too stupid, and too offended that the government could use a term in a different way than their particular faith.
i am offended by this. you calling religious people stupid? o hell nah. get ready to be destroyed....in 09
|
If marriage is a religious institution, then that's fucked because it carries legal benefits and we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.
If marriage is a legal institution, then denying gay marriage is fucked because that's discrimination.
|
|
|
I completely agree that governments should get the fuck out of people's intimate relationships. It makes no sense to me that the government is involved in marriage. "Hey honey, I love you so much lets get the government involved. Only a legal contract can express my love for you."
So fucking stupid.
Or even worse is that you dont even have to sign the contract. If you live with someone for a small period of time(6 months I believe) and you are having sex, then you automatically become married. I cant express how much I fucking hate the marriage laws.
|
These are some very good points. A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.
The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.
The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said, marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).
I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.
|
On November 06 2008 09:24 Djabanete wrote:
If marriage is a religious institution, then that's fucked because it carries legal benefits and we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.
If marriage is a legal institution, then denying gay marriage is fucked because that's discrimination.
Perfect statement
|
The separation of Church and State is simply meant to prevent a theocracy. Its separation means that the two can co-exist, and can intertwine, but one cannot rule the other. For example, the state cannot ban worship of religions. Likewise, Church alone cannot act as the decider of a political race. It's a given that religion can influence a citizen's decision for whom to vote, but it within itself cannot determine the elected official.
The religious implications in marriage are not to obtain legal benefits (so you have absolutely no reason to attack this, especially if you believe in the extreme degree of separation of church and state that you imply); on the other hand, it is discrimination from a legal standpoint.
|
If people have a problem with gay marriage, fine, call it a civil union but give them the same benefits. They deserve it too, you know. but to deny people those benefits simply because they are homosexual is nothing short of discrimination.
I think the OP is right in that there should be a separation of the legal marriage and the religious marriage. Religions have the right not to recognize gay marriages if they so choose, but the government should recognize them as legitimate and legal marriages or civil unions if you really want to call them that.
|
The church not accepting homosexuals is also discrimination. If anyone wants to quote the bible(not written by God) and say that the bible says something about it, I'll start quoting The Lord of the Rings.
|
On November 06 2008 11:38 vsrooks wrote:
The church not accepting homosexuals is also discrimination. If anyone wants to quote the bible(not written by God) and say that the bible says something about it, I'll start quoting The Lord of the Rings.
The difference is that religius people actually believe that.
|
On November 06 2008 12:19 MeriaDoKk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 11:38 vsrooks wrote:
The church not accepting homosexuals is also discrimination. If anyone wants to quote the bible(not written by God) and say that the bible says something about it, I'll start quoting The Lord of the Rings. The difference is that religius people actually believe that.
Which is why they should educate themselves about something they believe so strongly in. I'm not bashing the bible though as it has a lot of good lessons in it, but it doesn't need to be believed in its entirety nor does it need to be taken literally.
|
On November 06 2008 11:38 vsrooks wrote:
The church not accepting homosexuals is also discrimination. If anyone wants to quote the bible(not written by God) and say that the bible says something about it, I'll start quoting The Lord of the Rings.
I'm completely okay with the church not accepting homosexuals. It's their club, they can invite whoever they want. This is a free country, so they say.
Anyway I agree with the OP and I think he makes some strong arguments. The government should have differentiated between religious marriages and nonreligious marriages from the start. But that differentiation in itself is ridiculous. If the religious people want their marriage to be for them, I think they can have it.
Wouldn't it be something if straight nonreligious people started getting civil unions?
|
when i build a logical structure in my mind, it looks pretty simple: marriage is a sacred act in every religion while gay relationship isn't. Thus allowing gay marriages would offend people that have religious beliefs. If you going to marry a person of same gender, why don't u do it in some remote place in Nevada, designed for queers specifically. Why do u want queers doing this "officially" at a place designed for men and women?
another concern is benefits. People do not want to spend their tax money on supporting these gay prides and their "families". As long as they get NO BENEFITS whatsoever, i DON'T CARE. Get your own "church", get your ugly ass certificate and live your ugly life without ever popping out in front of me.
obvously they can't be allowed to adopt children. That's just fucking rude.
|
I don't like it when my tax dollars benefit people in straight marriages, but I'm not demanding those benefits being taken away.
And I want you to give me one good reason why a morally sound, financially sound, level-headed gay couple shouldn't be able to adopt a child. I'd bet that they'd make great parents, generally. I don't see any reason why a gay couple wouldn't be just as apt at raising a child as any other couple.
Don't start your argument with the words "I believe..."
Give me some evidence.
|
are you going to determine which one of them worthy of adopting a child? I don't really care if you want to spend your tax money on "straight" marriages, that's been decided for you already. If you are not happy, move the fuck out. The democracy is the majority, so as long as its true, you can stick to crying about fags being mistreated, noone cares.
adopting a kid into a "same sex marriage" type of family is just retarded. You are not educated enough to advocate this type of sick shit so i won't even argue. Until it's proven that those type of families DO NOT IMPACT kids' life in ANY WAY, you better calm down and stop talking out of your ass. Kids should not be adopted by fags, as well as single mother/fathers. This society isn't ready for these kids just yet. Maybe in the future, and i'm talking about single mothers/fathers, not fags.
|
On November 06 2008 12:51 banged wrote:
when i build a logical structure in my mind, it looks pretty simple: marriage is a sacred act in every religion while gay relationship isn't. Thus allowing gay marriages would offend people that have religious beliefs. If you going to marry a person of same gender, why don't u do it in some remote place in Nevada, designed for queers specifically. Why do u want queers doing this "officially" at a place designed for men and women?
another concern is benefits. People do not want to spend their tax money on supporting these gay prides and their "families". As long as they get NO BENEFITS whatsoever, i DON'T CARE. Get your own "church", get your ugly ass certificate and live your ugly life without ever popping out in front of me.
obvously they can't be allowed to adopt children. That's just fucking rude.
There are plenty of religions that accept gay marriage. There are branches of Christianity that accept gay marriage. Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca :D, and most Pagan religions accept gay marriage. I have strong religious beliefs; however, I'm perfectly fine with 'queers'. I'm also fine spending my tax money on acknowledging equal rights. As far as them adopting children, there's no reason a same sex couple would be more or less qualified to raise a child than any heterosexual couple.
|
vsrooks, there's no "branches" of Christianity. There's cults and sects, and they usually sick brainwashed people. Sicker then the "christians". Does Buddhism accept fags? Or does it not say anything about it? And why would u bring this up since there's literally no buddhists in the US? And the few that we have would stil lbe against it?
and Pagan religions? I mean what are you, 11? I cant even say 13, this has to be 11
same sex couple will have impact on childs' life. Starting with social life. First of all, bring some strong arguments before u start saying something that contradicts common sense. Then i will waste time giving you an answer.
|
On November 06 2008 13:07 banged wrote:
are you going to determine which one of them worthy of adopting a child? I don't really care if you want to spend your tax money on "straight" marriages, that's been decided for you already. If you are not happy, move the fuck out. The democracy is the majority, so as long as its true, you can stick to crying about fags being mistreated, noone cares.
adopting a kid into a "same sex marriage" type of family is just retarded. You are not educated enough to advocate this type of sick shit so i won't even argue. Until it's proven that those type of families DO NOT IMPACT kids' life in ANY WAY, you better calm down and stop talking out of your ass. Kids should not be adopted by fags, as well as single mother/fathers. This society isn't ready for these kids just yet. Maybe in the future, and i'm talking about single mothers/fathers, not fags.
I would argue that there is evidence to prove that children raised in fear-mongering catholic families causes more pain on the child than in, for instance, a loving, accepting, homosexually led family. The evidence I'm referring to is provided in The God Delusion, where a woman who was raised catholic sent a letter to Dawkins telling him about the psychological trauma the concept of "hell" left on her as a young child, and how over the past few years has had to attend therapy sessions to get over it.
Anyway, since you don't provide evidence, I'm just going to dismiss your argument as hearsay.
ALSO:
I found an article by Cindy M. Schorzman, MD and Melanie A. Gold, DO, who claim that children raised by homosexual adults have no lasting psychological trauma.
The article can be found below, and I'm positive those doctors have more credentials than you.
http://www.pediatriccareonline.org/pco/ub/view/AAP-Textbook-of-Pediatric-Care/394118/2/chapter_118:_gay__and_lesbian_parented_families
|
On November 06 2008 13:23 banged wrote:
vsrooks, there's no "branches" of Christianity. There's cults and sects, and they usually sick brainwashed people. Sicker then the "christians". Does Buddhism accept fags? Or does it not say anything about it? And why would u bring this up since there's literally no buddhists in the US? And the few that we have would stil lbe against it?
and Pagan religions? I mean what are you, 11? I cant even say 13, this has to be 11
same sex couple will have impact on childs' life. Starting with social life. First of all, bring some strong arguments before u start saying something that contradicts common sense. Then i will waste time giving you an answer.
just going to assume you're joking now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
