EPTOn July 28 2012 06:00 Jisall wrote:
In return i don't understand why people are making such a big deal about having "marriage" written on a paper. Get a domestic partnership written on a paper. You could call it a protest or better then a marriage, it doesn't matter to me. Stepping on religious traditions for a word choice is what is upsetting.
Show nested quote +
On July 28 2012 05:33 FabledIntegral wrote:
I've seen many articles *speculating* that in order to be a franchise owner, you are preferably married to your first wife (no divorce) and want to have children. In fact, one article I read said that they even would interview the children to see how the father/mother runs the household. Something along the lines of "if you can't properly run your own family, you can't properly run a business."
You can't really use the Bible as a reference in particular - the entire basis of "traditional marriage" is that it has traditionally been between a man and woman throughout time by nearly all civilizations. If the entire argument was based just on what the Bible says, it would have been thrown out a long time ago and gay marriage would be legal already on a Federal level.
When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest, there is no "religious" stamp as you allude to because there is no specific consensus. Some Christians might recognize the marriage, some might not, etc. It's up to the individual church to decide whether or not to marry. The point is that the government is in charge of issuing marriage licenses - not any church.
Almost no one in support of gay marriage is advocating that Christians (or any religious person) be forced to marry a homosexual couple or anything of that regard. I'd gather almost all advocates of gay marriage would support a church's ability to refuse a homosexual couple from attempting to marry inside their church. What they're advocating is simply the issuance of a government license with the title "marriage." That's it.
The government decided to get involved on the matter of having their licenses as titled "marriage" thus it is a government issue and not a religious issue. The religious part isn't even being addressed, so I don't understand why religious people are up in arms.
On July 28 2012 05:21 Ryalnos wrote:
Please provide sources on this; arguments so far have revolved around the idea that CFA company policy does not discriminate against gays, but that the objection is to which organizations they give money to. I would be quite surprised if this were provably true and had not been brought up yet in this thread. By the rest of your post I am guessing you made a leap/assumption based on ignorance.
On July 28 2012 04:54 Mauldo wrote:
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur.
This isn't just a company that simply gave some money to a political cause. Everyone does that in the form of lobbyists. This is a company that openly allows their branches to discriminate against gay people. Any Chik-Fil-A branch may ask you if you're gay, and if you say yes, Chik-Fil-A nationals has no problem with you refusing the hire. It's just another form of hatred finding a loophole in Anti-Discrimination laws. Gay people aren't officially a protected class like blacks or women, so this kind of bigoty can openly occur.
Please provide sources on this; arguments so far have revolved around the idea that CFA company policy does not discriminate against gays, but that the objection is to which organizations they give money to. I would be quite surprised if this were provably true and had not been brought up yet in this thread. By the rest of your post I am guessing you made a leap/assumption based on ignorance.
I've seen many articles *speculating* that in order to be a franchise owner, you are preferably married to your first wife (no divorce) and want to have children. In fact, one article I read said that they even would interview the children to see how the father/mother runs the household. Something along the lines of "if you can't properly run your own family, you can't properly run a business."
On July 28 2012 04:42 Jisall wrote:
Church/Priest/(insert religion) {Pardon my bolding}. Your first sentence is reinforcing my point. Atheism is handled in the bible differently then homosexuality, it's comparing apples and oranges. When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest it gains a religious stamp. If you want a non-religious, domestic partnerships is what the state has deemed the equivalent.
On July 28 2012 04:04 KwarK wrote:
No, marriage in a religious building conducted by a religious official is associated with religion. That does not mean that all marriages are religious or that all marriages need to be conducted by a priest or that everything a priest touches is religious. If an atheist couple wish to marry in a church because of the cultural heritage of hundreds of years of church marriages then that doesn't mean they have a religious marriage, it just means that they like church weddings.
God doesn't personally sign every marriage license, they go ahead with or without his blessing.
On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:
Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion.
The first amendment grants "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Free exercise thereof allows for religions to follow their beliefs towards marriage.
On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:
The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked.
On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people.
For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why.
Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree.
+ Show Spoiler +
Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people.
For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why.
Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree.
+ Show Spoiler +
Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits.
The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked.
Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion.
The first amendment grants "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Free exercise thereof allows for religions to follow their beliefs towards marriage.
No, marriage in a religious building conducted by a religious official is associated with religion. That does not mean that all marriages are religious or that all marriages need to be conducted by a priest or that everything a priest touches is religious. If an atheist couple wish to marry in a church because of the cultural heritage of hundreds of years of church marriages then that doesn't mean they have a religious marriage, it just means that they like church weddings.
God doesn't personally sign every marriage license, they go ahead with or without his blessing.
Church/Priest/(insert religion) {Pardon my bolding}. Your first sentence is reinforcing my point. Atheism is handled in the bible differently then homosexuality, it's comparing apples and oranges. When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest it gains a religious stamp. If you want a non-religious, domestic partnerships is what the state has deemed the equivalent.
You can't really use the Bible as a reference in particular - the entire basis of "traditional marriage" is that it has traditionally been between a man and woman throughout time by nearly all civilizations. If the entire argument was based just on what the Bible says, it would have been thrown out a long time ago and gay marriage would be legal already on a Federal level.
When a marriage takes place in a church with a priest, there is no "religious" stamp as you allude to because there is no specific consensus. Some Christians might recognize the marriage, some might not, etc. It's up to the individual church to decide whether or not to marry. The point is that the government is in charge of issuing marriage licenses - not any church.
Almost no one in support of gay marriage is advocating that Christians (or any religious person) be forced to marry a homosexual couple or anything of that regard. I'd gather almost all advocates of gay marriage would support a church's ability to refuse a homosexual couple from attempting to marry inside their church. What they're advocating is simply the issuance of a government license with the title "marriage." That's it.
The government decided to get involved on the matter of having their licenses as titled "marriage" thus it is a government issue and not a religious issue. The religious part isn't even being addressed, so I don't understand why religious people are up in arms.
In return i don't understand why people are making such a big deal about having "marriage" written on a paper. Get a domestic partnership written on a paper. You could call it a protest or better then a marriage, it doesn't matter to me. Stepping on religious traditions for a word choice is what is upsetting.
Thing is, christianity doesnt (or rather shouldnt) have a monopoly on the concept of marriage. That being said, most gay people who want a marriage dont want to force the christian church to marry them anyways. I would just want my marriage to be the same as every other couples marriage who didnt get married by the church. I dont see why this is so much to ask for.
(something like that lol)
