Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#226268 - 10/07/2004 20:09 gay marriage
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
Edit: the board attacked my cussing and censored a huge block of this message... Look at the next message for the more delicately hand-censored version


Edited by mschrag (10/07/2004 20:16)

Top
#226269 - 10/07/2004 20:15 Re: gay marriage [Re: mschrag]
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
Wow did that overzealously censor my post. I'll try again here:

I'm sure this will stir things up a bit, but I keep seeing these stories popping up on my Yahoo Most Emailed RSS feed, and it's really pissing me off:

This attempt at a constitutional ban on gay marriage ...

What the heck?

I'm only 26, so I haven't seen a lot, but I've never seen such a blatant violation of the civil rights of a minority group in my lifetime. It makes me embarrassed.
I don't care if the majority of people in the US are Christian and desire their morals to be forced on other people -- there's such a thing as the Separation of Church and State. And
that's all that is going on here. It's a bunch of religious people who feel that they somehow own the concept of marriage and that if your relationship doesn't match what their
religious books say, then it's invalid. Not to mention, with so much ridiculous crap going on in the world, that people would choose to fight against people caring about eachother ...
It disgusts me. And Kerry's not much better wIth this Civil Union crap. Get a backbone and level the playing field. There is no difference between Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage -- both were discriminated
against, and hopefully most people today believe they should be allowed (of course, I'm sure there are a bunch of people -- probably the same crazy ones -- who disagree). Civil Unions sound to me
to be no different than Separate But Equal. It was unconstitutional then and it's unconstitutional now.

Sigh. OK. Back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

Top
#226270 - 10/07/2004 21:41 Re: gay marriage [Re: mschrag]
mwest
old hand

Registered: 01/05/2003
Posts: 768
Loc: Ada, Oklahoma
I appreciate your zeal but your throwing an awful lot of people into the same category. Opposing gay marriage doesn't make someone a gay bashing fundamentalist. Lets take a few of the above statements and I'll show you what I mean.

1. Religion has a pretty good claim as definer of marriage. Marriage is documented as a religious institution far before organized government comes on the scene. Then you also have to deal with the fact that overwhelmingly people still turn to religion to conduct marriage services. Notice I've said nothing of Christianity... only religion. Most of the dominant world religions forbid homosexuality. If the US was predominantly Muslim the same arguments would be raised against homosexual marriage.
2. Civil Unions don't upset most religious people. I have no desire to keep people from getting proper health care. I also recognize the need of the state to protect the rights of individuals taken advantage of in the dissolution of relationships even if I don't agree with the relationships to begin with. Civil Union statutes could easily deal with these issues.
3. Separate but Equal references fall bitterly short. If I was a black man and I heard a homosexual make the comparison, I would be livid. The two populations have almost nothing in common. Homosexuals have never been counted as 1/8th of a person in the census. Homosexuals have never been forced to pick someone elses food. Homosexuals have never been forced into separate schools by the government and then forced to integrate through busing and picket lines. Homosexuals in short have no claim to that sort of rhetoric and should be ashamed of any claims of similarity between their position and the plight of African Americans prior to the 1960's.

I do not for a moment mean to say that all Christian or even religious people are as open minded as I am. There will always be those that desire homosexuals to be berated and treated as second rate citizens. However using the term "marriage" forces me to disagree with any legistaltion that I might otherwise support. If homosexual rights groups used any term other than marriage it would take nearly all the wind out of the sails of there opposition.
_________________________
-Michael West

Top
#226271 - 10/07/2004 23:46 Re: gay marriage [Re: mwest]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Much has been said in previous threads, but mwest's post pretty much outlines my views as well.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226272 - 11/07/2004 00:44 Re: gay marriage [Re: mwest]
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
1. Marriage has a huge amount of legal meaning also. The ceremony one enjoys in his/her church has emotional meaning only. It's the marriage certificate granted by the government that has meaning. In that respect, religion CANNOT claim marriage as its own. I agree this is not just a Christianity issue -- I'm talking religion in general also.

2. Most of the religious people that I've heard that have spoken out have been against Civil Unions also, but maybe they're just the vocal minority. It seems to me to be a bunch of linguistic games. Either get rid of the legal meaning of marriage in general and call them all "civil unions", or call current civil unions "marriage". Having the two confusingly similar, yet legally unequal, terms seems to me to open the doors for defining the distinction = discrimination. Why shouldn't a gay couple have 100% of the rights of my wife and me?

3. I disagree. Just because there's not an exact 1:1 correspondence between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement doesn't make the basic philosophy different. Right now gay people can't even marry eachother. So in that sense they have a huge loss of rights. From the census perspective, their relationships are not being counted AT ALL when you look at the tallies of married people. While I do agree that the level of discrimination against blacks was FAR worse than what exists against homosexuals, it's all just a matter of degrees. If I "just sorta'" discriminate against you, it's still wrong.

ms

Top
#226273 - 11/07/2004 00:57 Re: gay marriage [Re: mschrag]
Jerz
addict

Registered: 13/07/2002
Posts: 634
Loc: Jesusland
It's definately interesting to hear the different views on this issue *especially* since the state of GA will be voting on the ban of GM in November; it's actually informative to hear the opposing views. Although I personally agree with mwest 100% (no I'm definately not a gay basher or "religious" for that matter) Neal Boortz had an interesting view on this issue as well.
COME ON FOLKS .... LET'S REMEMBER WHAT'S IMPORTANT THIS YEAR

Top
#226274 - 11/07/2004 01:11 Re: gay marriage [Re: mschrag]
Laura
pooh-bah

Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
Two people should be allowed to marry regardless of race, religion or sex. Having children is not the only reason for marriage and if two people of the same sex decide they want to spend their lives together then let them have the benefits of marriage, if they so desire.
_________________________
Laura

MKI #017/90

whatever

Top
#226275 - 11/07/2004 01:56 Re: gay marriage [Re: Laura]
lectric
pooh-bah

Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
Why stop there? Why does it have to be -=2=- people? Or why people at all?

Top
#226276 - 11/07/2004 02:07 Re: gay marriage [Re: mschrag]
SuperQ
addict

Registered: 13/06/2000
Posts: 429
Loc: Berlin, DE
I would personaly like to see Civil Union anyway. Not from a gay/strait perspective, but a better separation of what I consider a religious marrige union, (holy matramony?)

My girlfriend and I would probably apply for a Civil Union if it existed, we've been together for 2 years, and have no marrige plans, mostly becuase of the religious connotations.

I also have a good friend who said he would glady get a divorce if he could get a civil union with his wife.

The one thing that really buged me was a talk I had with the HR department at the university where I work. They offer bennefits for "life partners", but that only applies to same-sex partners. I personaly feel it's sex discrimination to exclude strait couples. Their excuse was "get married".
_________________________
80gig red mk2 -- 080000125
(No, I don't actually hate Alan Cox)

Top
#226277 - 11/07/2004 02:46 Re: gay marriage [Re: lectric]
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
You can use the take-it-to-the-extreme argument against just about everything, but it usually doesn't work out. There are limitations on everything, it's all a matter of where we as a society decide to draw the line. That line needs to be drawn in a place that balances the beliefs of the majority with the rights of the minority. I think a Human/Dog marriage is a pretty reasonable place to draw that line -- mainly because marriage (from a legal standpoint) doesn't really make sense with a non-human on the receiving end. I honesty have not decided how I feel about polygamy though (it's a much more complicated situation legally). On the one hand, with consenting adults that are all aware of the polygamous situation, I personally couldn't care less. On the other hand, the rewriting of the tax laws to actually handle that situation and the cost of retooling who-knows-how-many forms and systems that track marriage as a two person entity definitely seem like a feat. But like I said, I haven't thought through this one much.

ms

Top
#226278 - 11/07/2004 05:53 Re: gay marriage [Re: mwest]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
This issue is one that I find very interesting and always imprefectly solvable. Personally, I don't get all riled up about gay marriage and would probably opt on balance to allow it if it was up to me alone. At the same time there are aspects of gay rights (if you can lump all of this under that umbrella) that I guess I am not completely at peace with. There was a piece on NPR a week or so ago that featured a guy who decided to that he wanted to be a dad and paid ~$100K to hire surrogates and now has twins. There was something I found almost creepy about the story -- a sense of self indulgence that made me say "Hey, who says you have a right to trade $$$ for kids?" -- 'course then I have to remind myself that lots and lots of heterosexual couples go through similar exercises paying for fertility services, surrogates, etc....

....I also have to remind myself that I know a couple of lesbian couples who have the nicest and most well-adjusted kids that I know of, so it seems like their efforts with respect to child-rearing didn't go to waste. I don't happen to know any gay male parents. Happenstance, that, so no anecdotall informaltion there.

I am interested to read mwest's comments:

1. Religion has a pretty good claim as definer of marriage. Marriage is documented as a religious institution far before organized government comes on the scene. Then you also have to deal with the fact that overwhelmingly people still turn to religion to conduct marriage services.

I'm no expert, but it would seem that whether we are talking about Puritan New England or Spain or Italy or England (or wherever) religion injected itself into formative governments and helped define many laws including those around marriage.

Notice I've said nothing of Christianity... only religion. Most of the dominant world religions forbid homosexuality. If the US was predominantly Muslim the same arguments would be raised against homosexual marriage.

But using various divinely-inspired religious concensuses (what *is* the plural of concensus?) as a yardstick -- as a norm -- doesn't seem very trustworthy to some of us. Sodomites in Saudi are beheaded based on that particular religious yardstick. For some of us, the persistence of various irreconcilable religions is a puzzle and the fact that some of them frown on gay marriage or other things seems immaterial. I *really* don't mean to taunt you, but it is extremely interesting to hear you cite what seems like ecumenical anti-homosexual-marriagism at a time when Christian and Muslim worlds seem to be engaged in a huge cultural and political collision.

2. Civil Unions don't upset most religious people.

Now here's a place where I could be totally wrong because I don't hang out with a lot of people I would consider religious.... but I really have the sense that if you put a plain thumbs up/down referendum in front of the strata of folks I might characterize as "really religious" -- one question that asked "Do you approve of civil unions between gay people?" -- I was thinking that the vote would be 9 to 1 opposed. That was just my impression. Where did that come from? Well, I didn't exactly see many of the nation's religious out there collecting signatures or otherwise fighting for civil unions in places like Vermont. It seemed like they were too busy fighting against them. Maybe this perception is a result of skewed perception of who is "religious".

I have no desire to keep people from getting proper health care. I also recognize the need of the state to protect the rights of individuals taken advantage of in the dissolution of relationships even if I don't agree with the relationships to begin with. Civil Union statutes could easily deal with these issues.

I think I mostly agree with you here. It might be considered gross heresy by some of our gay readers, but in the vein of separation of church and state, I would be pleased if we just gave "marriage", whatever that is, back to churches and dealt with legal issues of partnerships strictly on a civil (union) basis. That's just Jim the atheist talking.

I heard a radio news report some weeks back about a gay (Methodist?) minister who was being tried by a church court and I remember readng about Catholic tribunals having to do with annulments. I always have to think "Hey, if you want to recognize and submit yourself to such things, that's great." but, boy amd I ever glad that our political systems (mostly, in some places) have evolved to where those types of things are separate and optional. If marriage went that way, I think it would be swell. That way, religions can make up any sort of extra rules they want (like no sex on Fridays) without weighing down the legal system.

3. Separate but Equal references fall bitterly short. If I was a black man and I heard a homosexual make the comparison, I would be livid. The two populations have almost nothing in common. Homosexuals have never been counted as 1/8th of a person in the census. Homosexuals have never been forced to pick someone elses food. Homosexuals have never been forced into separate schools by the government and then forced to integrate through busing and picket lines. Homosexuals in short have no claim to that sort of rhetoric and should be ashamed of any claims of similarity between their position and the plight of African Americans prior to the 1960's.

While people have been killed for being queer in this country, they haven't been lynched that I am aware of or sent systematically to gas chambers, so I'll admit your point. But, but, but, even if you are a bit offended at what you perceive to be some folks strained comparisons of oppression, what bearing does that have on what people's right's should be?

I remember taking care of a guy in 1979 who had Guillian-Barre syndrome --- pretty completely paralyzed, cause unknown (though GB was thought to be preciptated by various viral illnesses). He was in his 30s. This was a Catholic hospital. It was not at all obvious that the gent was gay. His parents came to visit. ICU rules, family only. Nice folks, terribly concerned. After a few weeks, they brought with them "a friend...really part of the family" who we slowly figured out was the patient's partner of 10+ years.

In at least a few respects, I'm glad it is not 1979 anymore.

Anyhow, what I don't get is why religious folks get so riled up about this and want to pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. OK, BBS Canadians: You have gay marriage. Has Canada suffered as a result and how?
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#226279 - 11/07/2004 07:27 Re: gay marriage [Re: mschrag]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
The ceremony one enjoys in his/her church has emotional meaning only.
This depends on what you believe, really. I think the religious meaning of marriage is FAR more important than governmental aspects. I see the government as merely utilizing the concept of marraige for its own uses as the model makes sense in some areas. My marriage to my wife is NOT dependant whatsoever on what the law says. If they dissolved the concept of legal marraige entirely (which I've said before is a step I'd probably support) we'd still be very much married in every sense that we are now. I view marraige as a spiritual covenant, and that this type of covenant dates before there WAS such a thing as government. I realize that this is not a perspective we'd ever agree on, but you surely can see how I'd feel like the government redifining a concept I hold to be one of the church as being improper and a violation of the separation between church and state. An example I've cited before was if the the government suddenly began basing laws on baptism and then redifining exactly what baptism is. The church would understandably be very upset over this. People keep saying that it is a violation of church and state seperation to say marriage is limited to only one man and one woman, however the church feels it's a violation of church and state seperation for the government to redefine what the church believes. And it IS true that the church can go on defining "marriage" however it wants regardless of what the state says, but it still seems wrong for the state to even be involved. Of course for those who hold that marriage is a natural social construct that did not origionate with the church then it seems wrong for the church to be involved. That's a dissonace of believes that is just about impossible to resolve, but rather than recognizing this as a difference of beliefs both sides tend to demonize the other.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226280 - 11/07/2004 07:47 Re: gay marriage [Re: jimhogan]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Civil Unions don't upset most religious people.
Now here's a place where I could be totally wrong
Unfortunately, I have to think mwest is a little optimistic on this point (my previous, blanket agreement with his post notwithstanding). My experience is that most evangelical Christians are opposed to Civil Unions on the basis that it is just a matter of semantics and the feeling is that it is a "deception" of the "other side" to try and force its agenda through on a technicality. While I understand this perspective, like mwest I feel that a distinction between governmental Civil Unions and religious Marriages would be useful and not just a matter of semantics. I don't think it's right that a gay couple should not receive benifits because they made a choice. The choice, I believe, is an unhealthy one, but that doesn't need to be augmented by the state.
Quote:
I would be pleased if we just gave "marriage", whatever that is, back to churches and dealt with legal issues of partnerships strictly on a civil (union) basis. That's just Jim the atheist talking.
Well, Jim the athiest, Jeff the Christian would agree with you. I think the churches concept of marriage has already been harmed by secular notions of marriage anyway. I've argued for this before with the idea that we've not correctly identified the problem (we want to make sure primary care-givers are supported financially, there are reasonable legal associates between people who are close, etc.) so we end up using marriage as a catch-all institution that doesn't quite work when extended to the secular world we live in. But I doubt we'd ever be able to rid ourselves of the concept of "legal marriage".
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226281 - 11/07/2004 13:19 Re: gay marriage [Re: JeffS]
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
I think the unfortunate root cause in a lot of this is the duality of the word "marriage". It has completely separate legal and religious meanings that are (obviously) not necessarily in check. If you replace any reference to legal "marriage" with "marriage-legal" and religiou marriage with "marriage-religious", then I think this resolves your concern. They are different words with different meanings and different restrictions in each context. I think fukinjim is right that things would probably be a lot easier if the government just abandoned the word "marriage" in all contexts and just renamed the whole thing Civil Unions.

Top
#226282 - 11/07/2004 14:42 Re: gay marriage [Re: mschrag]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
If you replace any reference to legal "marriage" with "marriage-legal" and religiou marriage with "marriage-religious", then I think this resolves your concern.
Yes, but this is unlikely to happen. You and I recognize that the two are different, but I doubt most other people do.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226283 - 12/07/2004 10:33 Re: gay marriage [Re: mwest]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
Here's my question: why do you care if two gay people get married?

Top
#226284 - 12/07/2004 10:46 Re: gay marriage [Re: JeffS]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
Quote:
This depends on what you believe, really. I think the religious meaning of marriage is FAR more important than governmental aspects. I see the government as merely utilizing the concept of marraige for its own uses as the model makes sense in some areas. My marriage to my wife is NOT dependant whatsoever on what the law says. If they dissolved the concept of legal marraige entirely (which I've said before is a step I'd probably support) we'd still be very much married in every sense that we are now. I view marraige as a spiritual covenant, and that this type of covenant dates before there WAS such a thing as government. I realize that this is not a perspective we'd ever agree on,


This makes sense. It's not how I feel but I respect what it means to you.

Quote:
but you surely can see how I'd feel like the government redifining a concept I hold to be one of the church as being improper and a violation of the separation between church and state


No, I can't see this at all. You just said that your marriage has a meaning to you that is independent of the legal definition. So why do you care if the legal definition is changed?

Top
#226285 - 12/07/2004 10:52 Re: gay marriage [Re: JeffS]
JBjorgen
carpal tunnel

Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
Does anyone honestly think that if marriage was removed from the government and replaced with civil unions (regardless of sex of partners) and marriage was deemed strictly a religious term that homosexuals would cease to want to be married?

I'm truly asking the question to get your opinion. Personally, for many people, I think the issue goes much deeper than just equallity under the government.
_________________________
~ John

Top
#226286 - 12/07/2004 10:54 Re: gay marriage [Re: JeffS]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
Quote:
Quote:
If you replace any reference to legal "marriage" with "marriage-legal" and religiou marriage with "marriage-religious", then I think this resolves your concern.
Yes, but this is unlikely to happen. You and I recognize that the two are different, but I doubt most other people do.


Why is the word so important? Does your "marriage" become less valuable if the word is used to describe the partnership of gay people? If so, then your issues aren't with gay people.

Top
#226287 - 12/07/2004 11:00 Re: gay marriage [Re: JBjorgen]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
Quote:
Does anyone honestly think that if marriage was removed from the government and replaced with civil unions (regardless of sex of partners) and marriage was deemed strictly a religious term that homosexuals would cease to want to be married?

I'm truly asking the question to get your opinion. Personally, for many people, I think the issue goes much deeper than just equallity under the government.


I agree the issue goes deeper and I do think some gay couples would continue to push the limits of what equality means. But, as a practical matter, my gay friends would accept the victory for their legal rights and be content on this matter.

Top
#226288 - 12/07/2004 11:41 Re: gay marriage [Re: Dylan]
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
Quote:
why do you care if two gay people get married?

perhaps the best question of all, actually ...

Top
#226289 - 12/07/2004 12:41 Re: gay marriage [Re: mwest]
djc
enthusiast

Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
Michael,

You say you support the concept of civil unions, but want to reserve the right for religious institutions to control the concept of marriage. What you don't say is whether you expect that those religious institutions would all adopt the same policies, which I think they would not. I can think of several groups, such as the ELCA Lutherans, Unitarian Universalists, certain reformed branches of Judaism, etc that do support and perform gay union ceremonies.

So, in your world, I could go to the county courthouse and get a civil union to my partner, and I could go to the church of my choice and get a marriage ceremony. How does that really differ, legally, from what Massachussets is doing today? I guess I don't get it.

I also would point out that the Federal Marriage Amendment would make your vision an impossibility. Do you support the FMA?

--Dan.

Top
#226290 - 12/07/2004 13:13 Re: gay marriage [Re: Dylan]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Why is the word so important? Does your "marriage" become less valuable if the word is used to describe the partnership of gay people? If so, then your issues aren't with gay people.
My issue isn't with gay people at all. I believe that marriage is something God instituded within specific guidelines. Like anything else God has given us, proper usage yields blessing and improper usage is harmful, even if we don't see it. I don't like the idea of homosexual marriage because I see it as being harmful to people.

As for why the word is important to me, in a perfect world everyone would realize that the two insitutions of marriage are not the same (governmental and religious), however this just isn't the case. In fact, in the post you're responding to I had to explain the difference between them and why religious marriage is important to me. But more importantly than that, decisions about marriage that the government makes absolutly effects the way that people view the religious institution of marriage. No Fault divorce happens in the church all the time because the state allows it, yet it is explicitly ruled out in scripture.

I don't want the government to make broad pronouncements on things I believe. Those things should be left to the church.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226291 - 12/07/2004 13:18 Re: gay marriage [Re: JBjorgen]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Does anyone honestly think that if marriage was removed from the government and replaced with civil unions (regardless of sex of partners) and marriage was deemed strictly a religious term that homosexuals would cease to want to be married?
I don't think that removing marriage from the governmental would resovle the issues, but I do think it would put the disagreement in the proper arena. Questions about sexuality and corresponding religious beliefs cannot be truly be addressed in the legal realm, but between churches and other religious forums I think we're a lot more likely to make progress.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226292 - 12/07/2004 13:21 Re: gay marriage [Re: djc]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
What you don't say is whether you expect that those religious institutions would all adopt the same policies, which I think they would not.
I don't think they would, but at least then it would be a level playing field. You don't have the governement saying "marriage means x".
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226293 - 12/07/2004 13:24 Re: gay marriage [Re: JeffS]
djc
enthusiast

Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
Quote:
You don't have the governement saying "marriage means x".

I don't know of any case where a government has required a religious institution to perform ceremonies they don't believe in. Massachussetts certainly does not. Again, where's the problem?

--Dan.

Top
#226294 - 12/07/2004 13:24 Re: gay marriage [Re: JeffS]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
Quote:
I don't like the idea of homosexual marriage because I see it as being harmful to people.


Harmful to who? In what way?

Top
#226295 - 12/07/2004 13:39 Re: gay marriage [Re: Dylan]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Harmful to who? In what way?
Harmful to the gay couple. Probably harmful to their familys and others around them.

Once again, though, this is a personal belief that will be difficult understand outside of the context of my faith.

Any behavior against what God has put forth is harmful. Sometimes this can be experienced in very real and physical ways (Going to jail for stealing), other times it is the spritual breaking of fellowship with God. Whether one believes in the latter does not mitigate its effect. I realize that the homosexual couple probably doesn't care what I think about God or their relationship with Him, but if my beliefs are correct (and of course I think they are), then there IS harm, whether the couple realizes it or not. People do all sorts of harmful things to themselves without realizing it and that is what I think happens in the homosexal relationship.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#226296 - 12/07/2004 13:48 Re: gay marriage [Re: JeffS]
djc
enthusiast

Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
Quote:
Harmful to the gay couple. Probably harmful to their familys and others around them.

Once again, though, this is a personal belief that will be difficult understand outside of the context of my faith.

So, as a byproduct of your faith, you feel I am harming myself, my partner, and our respective families. My faith, and my personal beliefs do not support that. Do you favor laws that force your beliefs on me? Does your religion trump mine? Why?

I'm not directing this next comment at Jeff, Michael, or anyone else here in particular. I have a very direct interest in this situation. The lives of me, my partner, and our collective family are directly impacted. It's personal, and I take it very personally when people who have no direct stake in the issue want to use their religious beliefs to override mine.

--Dan.


Edited by djc (12/07/2004 13:55)

Top
#226297 - 12/07/2004 13:56 Re: gay marriage [Re: djc]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Do you favor laws that force your beliefs on me?
Nope. I prefer the law to stay neuteral on the issue, which is what I'm advocating. I'm saying the law should neither deny or allow gay marriage. Personally I'm opposed to gay marriage, and the preceding post was my rational why (which was the question you asked).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >