|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PitifulSoulLostInDarkness Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:41 pm
Lord Bitememan PitifulSoulLostInDarkness Quote: The only churches that would get butt-hurt are those who maintain an interest in dictating what non-members are and aren't allowed to do. That is outside the interest of society to protect. And it would still put an institution outside the reach of citizens, declaring a separate, but equal institution to accommodate them. We've been down this road before. Can you please explain this to me... Idk if I'm spazzing out or if Im just not getting it... The churches with the biggest objections here usually aren't targeting their own church membership. Catholics, for example, aren't saying "no gay marriage for Catholics," they're also saying "no gay marriage for Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, or anybody." They have all the power in the world to say "no gay marriage for Catholics" but it's none of their business what non-Catholics do. It's not society's job to enforce Catholic doctrine on non-Catholics. The distinction between civil unions and marriages is a legal double-standard. It creates an institution, marriage, that is straight only, and civil union, which is "for anybody," but in practice is the only option open to gays. Even if we made it legally equal to marriage, it is an exercise in maintaining a separate but equal institution. The courts didn't look too highly on that distinction in Brown v. Board, maybe we ought to defer to that wisdom where it comes to civil unions vs. marriage. Ok I see your point, and I would be fine with this just as long as it gives gays the ablility to have an actual "wedding" persay ceremony (with the dresses and cake and planning) blah blah and the ability to fill out taxes under being together (unioned, if thats what you want to call it).. no discriminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:46 pm
PitifulSoulLostInDarkness Lord Bitememan [quote="Yes, but this is also true of a church wedding as well. Ministers can't just pronounce people married, there's paperwork to fill out there too. And that's in addition to the marriage license which you have to apply for at the county clerk's office. The minister has to fill out a legal document, you both have to sign it, and he has to include a copy of the marriage license with the documents which he then files with the county. So, it's not as easy as you might think with a church either. I know the regulations and steps to getting a marriage legalized... I understand that it isn't easy.. but yet it is their job.. anyway where do you suppose that this be done than if not in a church? Well, I did address this already in my previous posts, but I'll answer again. First, some churches will perform same sex marriages. Then there will be churches that will form to perform same sex marriages. You also have the option of a justice of the peace, judge, or other public officials. And, if you want a ceremony, there are public officials who will attend and officiate (my mother was married in this manner). So, there are a host of options available that go outside the church's role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky_the3rd Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:16 pm
~FIRST WARNING~
EITHER YOU ALL START PLAYING NICE OR I'M CLOSING THIS TOPIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:07 pm
Lord Bitememan The churches with the biggest objections here usually aren't targeting their own church membership. Catholics, for example, aren't saying "no gay marriage for Catholics," they're also saying "no gay marriage for Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, or anybody." They have all the power in the world to say "no gay marriage for Catholics" but it's none of their business what non-Catholics do. It's not society's job to enforce Catholic doctrine on non-Catholics. Fair enough. Quote: The distinction between civil unions and marriages is a legal double-standard. It creates an institution, marriage, that is straight only, and civil union, which is "for anybody," but in practice is the only option open to gays. Even if we made it legally equal to marriage, it is an exercise in maintaining a separate but equal institution. The courts didn't look too highly on that distinction in Brown v. Board, maybe we ought to defer to that wisdom where it comes to civil unions vs. marriage. The issue is with the term marriage. I think what she is getting at is divorcing the concept of legal marriage and religious marriage and make all legal marriages into civil unions, thus all civil unions would be legal marriages. This is what they have set up in Europe from what I understand. A gay or straight couple would have to go to a Justice of the Peace or equivalent official to get married and then the couple is allowed to seek whatever religious ceremony they want to commemorate/celebrate the event as long as the religion wishes to commemorate/celebrate it. This secularizes marriage without infringing on freedom of religion. It's only confusing over here in the US because marriage is often equated with religious marriage. It's not an issue of separate but equal but an issue of separation of Church and State, unless you are going to say that separation of Church and State is separate but equal now? =/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:52 pm
Quote: The problem is it does show preference so long as the state honors church marriages. This means that the marriages performed by the Catholics, for example, will be accepted by the state as a legal marriage. The marriages performed by the ELCA which join a same sex couple would not. The only things that remedy that are the state getting out of marriage altogether (meaning, legally, nobody is married, everybody just has civil unions) rmcdra actually gave my point fairly clearly. I have not clearly stated it, but with my idea and view on civil unions, it would result in this. As marriage give couples quite a few benefits, it is something the state should be involved in. However, the actual act of a marriage ceremony, is religious. When you say marriage, I assume (as do many others) you mean the religious joining. Nowadays the word "union" is used quite a lot. My aunt is not religious and when she sent out her invitations she used the word "union" instead of "marriage". I'm not sure where the word "wedding" comes from though, but from my knowledge it is not strictly referring to a religious ceremony. Toss out the word "marriage" altogether, and let that continue to be the word used for the religious act/ceremony. The word "civil union" would then replace this on a legal level. To Pitiful: Even if a church refuses to marry you, they can't stop you from partying in style. Churches aren't even that popular anymore for weddings. Instead, people are renting out banquet halls where they can have the ceremony in one room and the party in the next. Or parks, those are extremely popular. There are some eco-domes here where I live and you can even rent THOSE out to have your wedding. Wouldn't that be awesome to have your wedding in a tropical forest in the middle of winter? I recently lived with a lesbian couple, one I am now dearly close to. Both were Christian, but I'm unsure of their denomination. Though I have found that more often than not, lesbians are pagans. Ah...I miss that girl and her crazy ways, this topic has got me thinking about her. emo Anywhoo....though statistically, most gay men are Christian, and most gay females are pagan...Most pagan males are gay and most pagan females are straight. xd At least, this has been my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:34 pm
rmcdra Lord Bitememan The churches with the biggest objections here usually aren't targeting their own church membership. Catholics, for example, aren't saying "no gay marriage for Catholics," they're also saying "no gay marriage for Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, or anybody." They have all the power in the world to say "no gay marriage for Catholics" but it's none of their business what non-Catholics do. It's not society's job to enforce Catholic doctrine on non-Catholics. Fair enough. Quote: The distinction between civil unions and marriages is a legal double-standard. It creates an institution, marriage, that is straight only, and civil union, which is "for anybody," but in practice is the only option open to gays. Even if we made it legally equal to marriage, it is an exercise in maintaining a separate but equal institution. The courts didn't look too highly on that distinction in Brown v. Board, maybe we ought to defer to that wisdom where it comes to civil unions vs. marriage. The issue is with the term marriage. I think what she is getting at is divorcing the concept of legal marriage and religious marriage and make all legal marriages into civil unions, thus all civil unions would be legal marriages. This is what they have set up in Europe from what I understand. A gay or straight couple would have to go to a Justice of the Peace or equivalent official to get married and then the couple is allowed to seek whatever religious ceremony they want to commemorate/celebrate the event as long as the religion wishes to commemorate/celebrate it. This secularizes marriage without infringing on freedom of religion. It's only confusing over here in the US because marriage is often equated with religious marriage. It's not an issue of separate but equal but an issue of separation of Church and State, unless you are going to say that separation of Church and State is separate but equal now? =/ Actually, I stated this same concept earlier when I said: Quote: That speaks more to the notion that there shouldn't be marriages at all at the state level. Civil unions only for everyone, and "marriage" would be something akin to communion; something between you and your church in which the state has neither interest nor involvement. And yes, it would be both a tenable equal legal position and solve the vexing problem of state recognition of religious doctrines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:09 pm
I know it's a little late to be just answering the question here, but, I do support Gay people, and what they stand for. I am a straight female, but have plenty of gay/bi friends. It really hurts me to see how they get treated because of what gender they are attracted to. I used to be a hardcore Christian, and I've changed from that. I'm not saying I'm going to bash God and say he isn't real, because I'm not like that. What I am trying to say, however, is the way my church treated these people. Once they found out, people couldn't look at my friends the same. They started preaching to them how their mind set was a disease, that it could be fixed. That they were wrong to like who they liked. It was truely terrible to see people hated for being who they are.
Gay people have a right, as much as all of us, to get married and have a family. I do understand how churches could refuse, because it simply goes against what they believe. I understand that. But do they have to all out bash them? Openly saying that they're wrong and stupid for being this way? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to tell the church how to act, or change people's minds. I don't want to be mean to anybody, this is simply how I feel.
The way these people are treated is absolutely terrible. Hate crimes, and jokes. It may be all fun and games to you, but it really hurts these people who are just trying to gain and have all the freedoms us straight people have. If anything, I believe they have more of a right than we do. They aren't afraid to love who the want just because of some book. If we can be who we want to be, why can't they?
I've gotten way off topic here, but it's what I've wanted to say. I read this somewhere, and I can't remember how I found it, but I wanted to share it with you: "There is no such thing as staright, gay or bi. People simply love who is right for them. It's called being in love."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:34 pm
Gay people should be allowed to get married. If two straight people want to be unhappy together, why can't two gay people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:53 pm
In my opinion, I think gays should get the same rights straight people get from marriage. I don't however believe that they should get the word. The word is a very special thing to some religions. I have nothing against gays. I just don't think they should get the word. My gay friend even agrees that they shouldn't get the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:37 pm
Jareths Girl_24TTW In my opinion, I think gays should get the same rights straight people get from marriage. I don't however believe that they should get the word. The word is a very special thing to some religions. I have nothing against gays. I just don't think they should get the word. My gay friend even agrees that they shouldn't get the word. Religion has nothing to do with marriage anymore. It's all a government thing now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:01 pm
zackwyld234 Jareths Girl_24TTW In my opinion, I think gays should get the same rights straight people get from marriage. I don't however believe that they should get the word. The word is a very special thing to some religions. I have nothing against gays. I just don't think they should get the word. My gay friend even agrees that they shouldn't get the word. Religion has nothing to do with marriage anymore. It's all a government thing now. That's not true. Some religions don't have anything against gays, but hold the word marriage in a special meaning. Yes the government had the power to make it legal, but it still does have to do with religion. The government said Muslims can rape their wives too, but that doesn't make it right. Again I have nothing against gays and believe they should have rights. I just don't think they should have gotten the word marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:17 pm
Jareths Girl_24TTW zackwyld234 Jareths Girl_24TTW In my opinion, I think gays should get the same rights straight people get from marriage. I don't however believe that they should get the word. The word is a very special thing to some religions. I have nothing against gays. I just don't think they should get the word. My gay friend even agrees that they shouldn't get the word. Religion has nothing to do with marriage anymore. It's all a government thing now. That's not true. Some religions don't have anything against gays, but hold the word marriage in a special meaning. Yes the government had the power to make it legal, but it still does have to do with religion. The government said Muslims can rape their wives too, but that doesn't make it right. Again I have nothing against gays and believe they should have rights. I just don't think they should have gotten the word marriage. This entire point has already been debated, I suggest the two of you read over the last few pages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:42 pm
Reiko_Sazuki I know it's a little late to be just answering the question here, but, I do support Gay people, and what they stand for. I am a straight female, but have plenty of gay/bi friends. It really hurts me to see how they get treated because of what gender they are attracted to. I used to be a hardcore Christian, and I've changed from that. I'm not saying I'm going to bash God and say he isn't real, because I'm not like that. What I am trying to say, however, is the way my church treated these people. Once they found out, people couldn't look at my friends the same. They started preaching to them how their mind set was a disease, that it could be fixed. That they were wrong to like who they liked. It was truely terrible to see people hated for being who they are. Gay people have a right, as much as all of us, to get married and have a family. I do understand how churches could refuse, because it simply goes against what they believe. I understand that. But do they have to all out bash them? Openly saying that they're wrong and stupid for being this way? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to tell the church how to act, or change people's minds. I don't want to be mean to anybody, this is simply how I feel. The way these people are treated is absolutely terrible. Hate crimes, and jokes. It may be all fun and games to you, but it really hurts these people who are just trying to gain and have all the freedoms us straight people have. If anything, I believe they have more of a right than we do. They aren't afraid to love who the want just because of some book. If we can be who we want to be, why can't they? I've gotten way off topic here, but it's what I've wanted to say. I read this somewhere, and I can't remember how I found it, but I wanted to share it with you: "There is no such thing as staright, gay or bi. People simply love who is right for them. It's called being in love."Not to mention Gay marriage doesn't conflict with the Bible nor Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:58 am
I have a friend who's a hardcore Christian and she says gay people are sick and disgusting. We have such discussions a lot and our Religion teacher says it's an awfully big sin. I think that's why gays can't marry in a church. Our teacher said the meaning of love is only to have children. WTF??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:04 am
Major_Nosebleed I have a friend who's a hardcore Christian and she says gay people are sick and disgusting. We have such discussions a lot and our Religion teacher says it's an awfully big sin. I think that's why gays can't marry in a church. Our teacher said the meaning of love is only to have children. WTF?? If that's the case the couples that can't or don't want to have kids are sick. =/ If you teacher isn't Mormon or Catholic then there's no sola scriptura reason for homosexuality to be considered a sin. The verses used to condemn it are either non-applicable to Gentiles, mistranslated, or require verses to be stretched and taken out of context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
