|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
Would you be okay if it was called "marraige" instead of "marriage," or is that too similar? How different should it be if marraige is too similar?
The government can not force any church to marry anyone if that church doesn't want to. How is that any different from what you said?
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people.
I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman.
I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:
Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
Marriage is just a word. Why do religious groups have to cling to it so fervently? It's not like they invented it. Marriage is a state/human right, not a religious one. Gay couples don't want to get "civil union-ized," they want to get MARRIED.
|
On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage.
The point is that it isn't a church thing. Every culture has some form of "marriage" just because the word has religious roots does not mean it is a religious word. The fact that non-religious people can get married makes this argument void. If you accept that in terms of "marriage" non religious and homosexuals are identical then why does one group have to use the words civil union whilst the other can use marriage?
|
On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage.
Why not make it a church thing?
Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions.
That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal"
I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have.
|
I have a Christian friend, and he explained it to me pretty well. I am for gay marriage, and we were discussing it. He said that he doesn't' really care what other people do, except that they should not use the term marriage. Marriage is term that is held dearly to them, and therefore, that is why he is against it. I asked him if he was OK if it was named something else (civil union) and he said that he is uncomfortable, but is OK with it.
I think the basic idea is that those of us that are not religious see marriage as a ceremony to declare love to each other, but Christians sees it something almost sacred. I think that is the primary issue.
|
On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people?
Gays have as much a right to fuck up marriage as straight people.
None.
Marriage laws are a complete fucking joke, and need to be seriously reformed. As in, eliminate no-fault divorce, require disclosure of medical/criminal history prior to nuptials, at-fault divorce needs to require adultery on the part of the woman, concubinage on the part of the man, a severe criminal conviction, abandonment or insanity and complete elimination of subsidies towards single parents. And finally, laws against discrimination on the basis of marital status need to be removed.
If people don't want to get married, then so be it. If they want to shack up and have children, so be it. The western notion of romantic marriage undermines it completely.
Marriage isn't just about the two of you. Its about forming stable families that allow for the accumulation of social capital.
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now. No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
Or, idk, maybe human survival transcends procreation into the realm of ensuring the safety of the race as a whole. This would include caring for others, possibly even sharing your life with somebody so you can pool resources and efforts, while providing one another with the emotional and physical comfort of a companion.
Or we can take your route, everybody just goes around having sex. To hell with marriage! Should spend all our time worrying about how to have more babies, not stupid rituals which bind ourselves to one mate, spitting on the very nature of evolution by restricting diversification!
|
On February 09 2012 13:45 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays have as much a right to fuck up marriage as straight people. None. Marriage laws are a complete fucking joke, and need to be seriously reformed. As in, eliminate no-fault divorce, require disclosure of medical/criminal history prior to nuptials, at-fault divorce needs to require adultery on the part of the woman, concubinage on the part of the man, a severe criminal conviction, abandonment or insanity and complete elimination of subsidies towards single parents. And finally, laws against discrimination on the basis of marital status need to be removed. If people don't want to get married, then so be it. If they want to shack up and have children, so be it. The western notion of romantic marriage undermines it completely. Marriage isn't just about the two of you. Its about forming stable families that allow for the accumulation of social capital.
I'm not sure what you are saying 
My point was simple. If straight people have the right to completely shit all over the concept of marriage and what it is traditionally supposed to be, why can't gay people? Who says gay families are inherently less stable than staight ones?
Edit: Are you saying that no-one should get married?
|
On February 09 2012 13:43 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. The point is that it isn't a church thing. Every culture has some form of "marriage" just because the word has religious roots does not mean it is a religious word. The fact that non-religious people can get married makes this argument void. If you accept that in terms of "marriage" non religious and homosexuals are identical then why does one group have to use the words civil union whilst the other can use marriage?
To me, I believe it's a church thing before its a religious thing. To me, marriage means a sacred covenant that a man and a woman make together before God.
If I believe that, I have the right to vote against it just as much as you have the right to vote for it if you want to.
|
On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have.
It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing.
|
You silly kids being fooled into thinking gay marriage is actually an important issue. While the public is all worried about giving this tiny group some rights, these crooks are trying to STRIP US OF ALL OUR RIGHTS. SOPA, PIPA, and NDAA are actual issues. We need to protect the rights we already have.
So stop with this gay marriage nonsense. It doesn't matter to the 99% of us.
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
So you want to spend a lot of tax payer money to treat gay people fairly, yet not the same?
Sounds like discrimination, discrimination against someone loving someone of their own choosing, disgusting. Sure you can give them the same benefits, but want to shove the fact that they're different down their throats as you do it. You'd rather waste a ton of money copying an already semi-working system simply because of YOUR definition of marriage, than choosing a more successful and obviously fair route.
|
On February 09 2012 13:45 wunsun wrote:
I have a Christian friend, and he explained it to me pretty well. I am for gay marriage, and we were discussing it. He said that he doesn't' really care what other people do, except that they should not use the term marriage. Marriage is term that is held dearly to them, and therefore, that is why he is against it. I asked him if he was OK if it was named something else (civil union) and he said that he is uncomfortable, but is OK with it.
I think the basic idea is that those of us that are not religious see marriage as a ceremony to declare love to each other, but Christians sees it something almost sacred. I think that is the primary issue.
Indeed it is, and I think you and your friend understand it perfectly. Just split them apart if you ask me. Then I'm fine with it.
|
On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing.
Marriage is not a christian invention.
|
On February 09 2012 13:52 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:45 wunsun wrote:
I have a Christian friend, and he explained it to me pretty well. I am for gay marriage, and we were discussing it. He said that he doesn't' really care what other people do, except that they should not use the term marriage. Marriage is term that is held dearly to them, and therefore, that is why he is against it. I asked him if he was OK if it was named something else (civil union) and he said that he is uncomfortable, but is OK with it.
I think the basic idea is that those of us that are not religious see marriage as a ceremony to declare love to each other, but Christians sees it something almost sacred. I think that is the primary issue. Indeed it is, and I think you and your friend understand it perfectly. Just split them apart if you ask me. Then I'm fine with it.
Marriage was around before Christianity just so you know. So you, and the person you're quoting are wrong in your ways of thinking.
|
On February 09 2012 13:49 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:43 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. The point is that it isn't a church thing. Every culture has some form of "marriage" just because the word has religious roots does not mean it is a religious word. The fact that non-religious people can get married makes this argument void. If you accept that in terms of "marriage" non religious and homosexuals are identical then why does one group have to use the words civil union whilst the other can use marriage? To me, I believe it's a church thing before its a religious thing. To me, marriage means a sacred covenant that a man and a woman make together before God. If I believe that, I have the right to vote against it just as much as you have the right to vote for it if you want to.
That is most certainly true and I salute you on standing by your beliefs 
What I can't stand is people who say they are not religious but don't support the concept of gay marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 13:52 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing. Marriage is not a christian invention.
That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it.
|
On February 09 2012 13:54 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:52 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing. Marriage is not a christian invention. That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it.
You can say "to me" all you want, but you're still wrong. Marriage isn't a "church thing before a government thing" because marriage predates it.
|
On February 09 2012 13:54 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:52 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing. Marriage is not a christian invention. That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it.
Of course you have the right to speak up and vote against it, but you must also understand how this violates U.S. Constitutional law and common law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
