|
United States5162 Posts
Personally, I think they should get the word marriage out of government completely. If you want to get married, go to a church. If you want to be recognized by the government, go to a courthouse.
|
On February 09 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 23:44 CajunMan wrote:I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense. On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed. If your first wife says ya hell ya hook me up with some polygamy. There are Christians that disagree on this point though. Really all this says is if you don't think gay unions are marriage, then YOU should not get gay married. We do have religious freedom in this country so I can religiously marry whatever I want anyway. If the word marriage is the only issue, then really your argument comes down to pointlessly insulting the dignity of other peoples relationships. Unless you're arguing that they shouldn't get marriage benefits either.
but thats not the point he has. How many gay people arn't religious and don't want to be religiously married? a lot of Christians see it as them giveing the whole church the middle finger for no reason and thats why people fight it so much.
|
On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity. Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
and marriage was a property contract before it became a religious thing.
|
On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion
Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married.
|
On February 10 2012 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionThere was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to. Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems.
The African/Asian thing is comparable in some ways. We don't let Asians say they are African or Native American on college applications, even though they might like too, because we recognize that these things aren't the same. But those categorizations are not meant to demean, belittle, or persecute on group, they just help differentiate so that we can make more precise statements etc. The same could be argued about marriage as a heterosexual institution and something else as a homosexual one, which would also be legally recognized.
|
On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married.
Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage.
People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots.
|
On February 10 2012 02:27 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionThere was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to. Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems. The African/Asian thing is comparable in some ways. We don't let Asians say they are African or Native American on college applications, even though they might like too, because we recognize that these things aren't the same. But those categorizations are not meant to demean, belittle, or persecute on group, they just help differentiate so that we can make more precise statements etc. The same could be argued about marriage as a heterosexual institution and something else as a homosexual one, which would also be legally recognized.
We allow Asians to say they are Americans if they have American citizenship. Ethnicity is something they are born with. Marriage is a contract granted by the law, just as citizenship is a right granted by your nation of birth. A gay person cannot say they are straight. But they should be allowed to say they are married.
|
On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots.
Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots.
|
On February 10 2012 02:27 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionThere was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to. Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems. The African/Asian thing is comparable in some ways. We don't let Asians say they are African or Native American on college applications, even though they might like too, because we recognize that these things aren't the same. But those categorizations are not meant to demean, belittle, or persecute on group, they just help differentiate so that we can make more precise statements etc. The same could be argued about marriage as a heterosexual institution and something else as a homosexual one, which would also be legally recognized.
They can't change genetics, but they can change the name. If Asians as a whole wanted to change their name to...Pineapple, we wouldn't think we have the right to say "No, ASIAN people, you can not change your name. You have to be called Asian, because that's what we've been calling you for thousands of years". Similarly, we shouldn't care what gay people call their love-life. We are taking away their right to label an aspect of their life. We're not taking anything away from everyone else. This is simply a case of one group of people wanting other groups to conform to their opinions. Obviously there are cases where this is unavoidable, in the case of taxes, war, etc. But I would classify someone's personal love life as very independent and not an instance where it is appropriate to command others.
Its like this:
Person 1 and 2: hey, government, can you call us, person 1 and 2 this word?
Person 5: NO! NO, GOVERNMENT DO NOT CALL THEM THAT
Government: Sorry, person 1 and 2, but person 5 doesn't want me to call you that.
|
On February 10 2012 02:34 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots.
Its not legalizing marriage its the state recognizable it as equal. The only thing that gays give a shit about marriage is the name of it and what it does. They don't care at all about the religious significance of it so why should they feel the need to force that they are called married?
Its a civil rights issue, thats really not something that needs to be explained. And again stop calling christians bigots and expecting that you keep the moral high ground. Thats another big problem I have with the movement. you don't get to automatically assume that everyone thinks you're right.
|
This board is very, very liberal, and I'm super liberal too, but a friend brought up a good question.
What is your definition of marriage? Personally, I am opposed to banning gay marriages ONLY because it takes away from their basic rights - right every couple gets when they marry. Even partial rights given to gay unions I oppose because I feel they should have full rights.
However, I am opposed to terming a union between two men or two women a "marriage". To me, the word is so specific - a union between a man and a women - that I can't imagine myself labeling the union of two men or two women a "marriage".
I'll probably get alot of flak for this, but that's just my opinion.
tl;dr
I support giving gay unions full rights given to married couples, but oppose calling gay unions "marriage".
|
People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots.
What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral?
Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here.
I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! I can only imagine the torment!
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married.
I'm pretty sure Christians are opposed to gay relationships/marriage in general, as the Bible calls homosexuality imooral, an abomination. And to recognize the union of two same gender through marriage means that Christianity acknowledges and accepts homosexuals on equal footings of heterosexuals.
I think the whole issue on gay marriage is ridiculous. People have a right to be happy and i thought only God can judge them? I dont see so-called Christians fightig as intently for the sanctity of marriage by combating divorce and pre-marital sex. The purpose of a marriage is to raise a child through a good environment. I don't see straight couples raising regular saints.
|
On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:34 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots. Its not legalizing marriage its the state recognizable it as equal. The only thing that gays give a shit about marriage is the name of it and what it does. They don't care at all about the religious significance of it so why should they feel the need to force that they are called married?
The term "marriage" is so deeply intertwined with every day life that it would be silly to call it something else for a small group of people. If you'd have a separate term for gay-marriage, how do you refer to your civil-union-partner? Husband? When defining your relationship status, are you single, in a relationship, married or... what? civil-unified? Gay-married?
If you're going to use a separate term for the bonding of two people for the government, then apply it to everyone: gay and straight alike. Civil unions for all.
However, marriage is not solely a religious matter. It's a legal concept first. Christians hijacked it and are now claiming it for their own. That's cool, but don't come stampeding in when the legal concept is being extended to something that might not suit with your particular beliefs.
|
The problem is that the whole world uses the word marriage (or some form of it), not just the Christian world so they don't get to define it for everyone, no matter how much it may make some of them them feel less special when they can't deny it to certain people.
|
Islam allows polygamy, but we don't allow that. (for tax reasons actually, do don't start this whole if gays get married what comes next, because animals cannot consent to marriage and polygamy would cheat the system)
Why then should Christianity get to hold sway over a concept they didn't even invent? (yes they're probably Jews and muslims that oppose gay marriage, but the vast majority are fundamentalist Christians)
|
On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:34 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots. Its not legalizing marriage its the state recognizable it as equal. The only thing that gays give a shit about marriage is the name of it and what it does. They don't care at all about the religious significance of it so why should they feel the need to force that they are called married? Its a civil rights issue, thats really not something that needs to be explained. And again stop calling christians bigots and expecting that you keep the moral high ground. Thats another big problem I have with the movement. you don't get to automatically assume that everyone thinks you're right.
Wow... You need to learn how to think logically.
The state recognising marriage is legalising it. The gays don't "give a shit" (as you so Christianly phrase it) about the religious significance, as with millions of heterosexual atheists who get married, because religion does not have a monopoly over the phrase.
Why are you not calling for marriage to be banned for straight, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, spiritualist people who do not believe in the Christian significance of marriage?
Christians are bigots (at least the ones who are against gay rights). I mean, I just can't think of any other way to put it. Just as I would call someone who disagrees with giving black people rights racists, just as I would call someone who disagrees with giving women rights sexists, I also call Christians who disagree with giving homosexuals rights bigots.
|
On February 10 2012 02:44 StyLeD wrote:
This board is very, very liberal, and I'm super liberal too, but a friend brought up a good question.
What is your definition of marriage? Personally, I am opposed to banning gay marriages ONLY because it takes away from their basic rights - right every couple gets when they marry. Even partial rights given to gay unions I oppose because I feel they should have full rights.
However, I am opposed to terming a union between two men or two women a "marriage". To me, the word is so specific - a union between a man and a women - that I can't imagine myself labeling the union of two men or two women a "marriage".
I'll probably get alot of flak for this, but that's just my opinion.
tl;dr
I support giving gay unions full rights given to married couples, but oppose calling gay unions "marriage".
We've been over this argument a million times. Marriage used to mean ownership, that changed. After that, marriage meant the subjugation, but not necessarily ownership of the woman. Eventually that changed. Sure, it continued being a man and a woman through those changes, but it totally blows apart the idea of marriage being this invincible, never changing concept. Further, marriage lost its exclusivity as a term once government began legally marrying people. A marriage can be performed without a priest or whatever, which is also a huge change. People don't just go to a church and call it good. They get a marriage license.
In summary: Marriage has not only changed in a purely spiritual sense substantially, it has also lost its exclusivity. Marriage no longer operates under the authority of religion alone.
|
On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!!
Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct?
|
On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Seems that marriage is a big deal to gays too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
