|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 24, 2011 6:54:05 GMT -5
I cant support this because I think its the wrong way to do the right thing. Instead of splitting hairs to determine our classifications we would be much better off just cleansing the books of Gender, Racial and Religious selections of any type. I do not entirely disagree. However, some of them are necessary evils because without them prejudices occur to the extreme detriment of many of our citizens. Obviously a gay marriage bill is necessary because without it, no one recognizes them. In theory, there should be no need for them. But as I have mentioned either earlier here or in another thread, we humans are a despicable race!
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 24, 2011 7:25:27 GMT -5
I cant support this because I think its the wrong way to do the right thing. Instead of splitting hairs to determine our classifications we would be much better off just cleansing the books of Gender, Racial and Religious selections of any type. I do not entirely disagree. However, some of them are necessary evils because without them prejudices occur to the extreme detriment of many of our citizens. Obviously a gay marriage bill is necessary because without it, no one recognizes them. In theory, there should be no need for them . But as I have mentioned either earlier here or in another thread, we humans are a despicable race!Stop saying that, Swimmy! I'm beginning to feel self-conscious!
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 8:44:40 GMT -5
How would it redefine your marriage, JG? My marriage is the bond I share with my wife. Gay marriage doesn't change that. It will always be what we make it to be. Simply because gays get the right to marry doesn't impact my marriage in the least. If anything, I will be glad that others finally have that right to join together in their own special bond just as I can.
Just because marriage might be redefined as two spouses, does it automatically mean that your spouse is suddenly of the same sex as you? Seriously. What does it change for existing marriages? What does it change for any heterosexual marriage, past, present or future? Not a damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 8:55:21 GMT -5
I cant support this because I think its the wrong way to do the right thing. Instead of splitting hairs to determine our classifications we would be much better off just cleansing the books of Gender, Racial and Religious selections of any type. I do not entirely disagree. However, some of them are necessary evils because without them prejudices occur to the extreme detriment of many of our citizens. Obviously a gay marriage bill is necessary because without it, no one recognizes them. In theory, there should be no need for them. But as I have mentioned either earlier here or in another thread, we humans are a despicable race! Same here, agreed with both of you. Society for one reason or another feels the need to classify, categorize and differentiate things. For better or for worse (no pun intended of the topic), humans have done this for thousands of years. It is when people focus on those differences that divisiveness becomes prevalent. Take race for instance. Take a group of young kids in say a daycare or pre-school. Put a bunch of different races together in that group. You know what you'll find? They'll all play together, free of discrimination, free of classification, free of differences. Partially its because they can't comprehend it. My point is, when you don't look at the differences, they don't matter and they shouldn't matter. It is not until those kids are taught social differences that they take notice. Sometimes it takes looking at things through the eyes of a child, seeing things in the purest way, can we see the simplicity without all the labels. When the human race collectively reflects on all of our commonalities, that we are all alike as humans, then we'll see equality and some semblence of peace.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 9:28:36 GMT -5
Marriage is marriage. It is not a private bond. It is a public bond. The ceremony to unite two people in the bond of marriage is a public act. The signing of the legal paper's are an extention of that public act. The ceremony and very nature of marriage is always publc, that is why there witness to this (sacred) event. Gays and lesbians want that same act that I mentioned above to also be legal for them. If gay's and lesbians are allowed to marry none of the above is negated. There marriage will be a public event of a bond that unites them forever as one. Marriage by its nature is sacred and forever. Laws have to be made reflecting that the bond is sacred and forever. If we base everything on the fact that some marriages do not last forever then we bring up the questioning as to why we even need marriage, why we even need to sign a contract( covenant) that testifies that the couple are now one and that union will be forever. Now the sacred and covenant part of marriage can be left out of the discussion for those who are not religious people or those who are religious people but do not attend church but the fact that the bond is legal and unites the couple as one and that the event is public is what marrige is. Gays and lesbians what this. They should be allowed this. And religious institutions will have to either adapt and change there own understanding of what constitutes a marriage for the betterment of mankind or religious institutions can choose not to change what they believe is intrinsic to there institution also for the betterment of mankind. Will some people choose to leave their religion because of this yes and they already are. The Anglican Church is actually breaking up over gay marriage and female priests along with some other laws and have returned to the Catholic Church. A new rite now exists in the Catholic Church to recieve the people and the Bishops and the clergy even if they are married. This started under Benidict a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 10:27:23 GMT -5
Exalt to you, Alan.
What I've always found ironic, being Roman Catholic myself, is how we're taught to love one and other but yet homosexuals are considered deviants and villified on the same token. If God views homosexuality in such a way, who am I to judge? God will be the judge of that, not me and not mankind. Also of an irony, we're taught that God is this all loving allmighty being. It would seem to me that God would be more inclined to view people on the merits of how they lived their life as opposed to who they loved and how. I would gather that a gay person who lead a peaceful life helping people would have a better chance at seeing heaven than a heterosexual rapist and murderer who's life was all about hurting people. Sorry, I can't buy into the arguement that homosexuality is the worst thing a person can be. And I cannot accept that God would be so bold either.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 24, 2011 11:01:25 GMT -5
I don't mean to demean the faith of those of you who are practicing Roman Catholics, but I find it rather hypocritical that the church should take a stand against homosexuality or gay marriage, while fighting the internal struggles concerning the numbers of homosexual priests and their horrible offenses against children over the years. A church that requires celibacy and forbids marriage by their clergy is going to find themselves "infiltrated" by homosexuality. It is very sad that such acts have come to pass. I remember when I WAS a practicing Catholic as a young boy, Father Lutz and Father Quinn at St Pauls in Whitesboro were my heros and great spiritual role models. I can't imagine either of them or any other priest that I ever encountered, perpetrating such acts against children. But until the church has manned up to it's own problems and properly addressed them, they have no room to speak to any matters of homosexual behavior or lifestyle.
As for "God" condemning homosexuality or damning anyone for their sexual proclivities, I am of the opinion that our God is a merciful and forgiving God, and that for whatever reason, it was HE the creator that put those souls on earth. It is my opinion that if he is not a very forgiving God, heaven is going to be a very sparsely populated place and very damned few of us are going to make the cut. Many of those I know that perceive themselves as pious, are simply the biggest judgmental hypocrites on earth.
I believe that our God created us all as equals, Jew, Gentile, black, white, gay or straight.
I doubt that it is a choice made by the individual. A decision to wake up one day and decide that they want to be demeaned, abused, discriminated against, called names, beat up, and vilified by religious hypocrites.
For those that oppose the gay lifestyle, the marriage dispute is rather irrelevant in the way it will effect YOUR lives. It is a fact that gay people exist, gay people fall in love with each other, and gay people live together as committed couples. Gay people therefore, in a nation founded on freedom, and noted for freedom of choice, and freedom from discrimination, deserve to live a life filled with the same freedoms and rights as any other American.
Allowing gay marriage takes NOTHING away from the sanctity of the marriage of any straight couples except as a perceived in their own minds. As for whether churches should be required to recognize of perform marriages by gays, NO, they should not be required my law to go against their own religious beliefs or practices.
Simple. Religious ceremony? Up to the church whether they will perform it or not. Civil ceremony and licensing? Gays have the same rights to access to the license and privileges of being married in a civil ceremony as any other couple that pays taxes and lives in the USA. Anything else is discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 11:42:50 GMT -5
Exalt to you as well, Clip, and very nicely put.
The separation of church and state should automatically exclude religion from having to accept what it does not believe in. You actually have to get permission in the Catholic Church to remarry if you'd been divorced before. Also, you have to get permission in the Catholic Church if you are marrying someone of a different faith. So, in some respects, religions have been able to discriminate as they see fit anyway.
Besides that, why would any gay couple seek a marriage in a church who will not accept them otherwise? The religious carve-outs, as they are called, seem very moot to me. No, the arguement for gay marriage isn't about religion at all, its about a legal right and what is right.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 24, 2011 12:23:45 GMT -5
I guess one of my biggest beefs with the whole idea is that the government would have any say in it whatsoever, Gay or Hetero. They have no right via the Constitution to sit in judgement of relationships between consenting adults period.
Clipper, these laws prohibit you from extending your retirement privileges to your Girlfriend that you have lived with and love, just because your not in the right category! How can that be right?
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 24, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
I can't extend my retirement privileges to my "girlfriend" because WE ARE NOT MARRIED, although we have every legal right to BE married if we choose to. That is the distinguishing factor and that is precisely why gay individuals should also be allowed the same privileges or rights as hetero's.
Actually there are 12 states and the District of Columbia that recognize "common law" marriage and award it all the privileges enjoyed by those married in a religious or civil ceremony. Unfortunately for Kathy and I neither NY or Tennessee are common law states.
As far a the government involvement, whether it is arguable that they have a right to be involved or not is irrelevant under present law. As long as government has a say in heterosexual marriage, it should not preclude gay people from "enjoying" the same rights and privileges as any other American.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 12:52:49 GMT -5
I guess one of my biggest beefs with the whole idea is that the government would have any say in it whatsoever, Gay or Hetero. They have no right via the Constitution to sit in judgement of relationships between consenting adults period. As far a the government involvement, whether it is arguable that they have a right to be involved or not is irrelevant under present law. As long as government has a say in heterosexual marriage, it should not preclude gay people from "enjoying" the same rights and privileges as any other American. Exactly. Commonlaw marriages used to be recognized in NY as far as I know but that's going way back. PA used to but not sure anymore. When everything started to become a legal mess with divorces, custody, estates, etc. then the issues of legal marriages become relevant and part of the reason why government stuck its nose into it. But I still don't see where homosexual marriage makes that legal mess any worse. The same types of issues would be the same hetero or homo. There will still be divorces, estates, marital property, ect...
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 24, 2011 13:01:16 GMT -5
That's my point Clipper, if were going to fix this for one population, why not make it truly fair for all. Discriminating against your common-law Marriage is not much diff than not extending benefits to Gay Couples. If you and your honey were to part company, you would have the same issue to deal with that Gay couples do now. The new rules would allow one without mentioning the other. Two relationships, with 2 completely different set of rules.
I guess it kind of seems like trying to give Civil rights status to an activity, then allowing it for some and not others.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 24, 2011 13:20:23 GMT -5
I guess the key word is "marriage" JR. We are not married and therefore would not be discriminated against by allowing gays to marry. Marriage is a privilege that is available to us but we choose of our own volition not to partake. Unmarried gays are not going to be afforded any more rights or privileges than Kathy and I as unmarried heterosexuals.
If there is an argument to be made as to whether government belongs in the marriage business, the same argument could be made for the churches.
I will be quite frank. I understand and respect those that have a deep belief and heartfelt respect for the "sacraments" and religious sanctity of ceremonial acts or customs of a church. I myself don't subscribe to an "organized" religion, church doctrine or other such belief. I subscribe only to faith, power of prayer, and belief in a merciful and omnipotent God. A God that can do anything that is possible, and a God for which anything IS possible if one can understand what I mean by that.
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jun 24, 2011 14:36:35 GMT -5
i figure if God has gotta problem with any if it He will deal with it Himself at the appropriate place and time! I am just waiting for the day we can have a heterosexual day, week month and our own parade that doesn"t include rainbows>oh and dont forget that special weekend at Disneyworld
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 24, 2011 14:36:59 GMT -5
Marriage is between a man and a woman ...period.....and no one should mess with that concept.
Gays....should find their own term and have laws changed so they are protected by the the laws a heterosexual couple has. That is what this is really all about and not "marriage".
|
|