I'm all for gay marriages, maybe not in churches, although that's up to the minister they want to do the deed in my opinion. I think people may be getting a bit tangled about marriage in general and a 'christian' marriage (in a church). I would assume most people who want gay marriages to be legal aren't talking about doing it in church, but in general. Edit: I get where walle is coming from in terms of you shouldn't put the desires/needs of a minority over the majority in general, but considering here the majority aren't losing anything (they can still get married, nothing has changed) they don't really have a leg to stand on with that argument.
Homosexuals are not a minority group, they aren't a group at all - they are just people that fell in love with the same sex rather than the other one, beyond that, they are no different. Which is why they should be entitled to exactly the same as Heterosexuals. I hate labels, and labeling people and groups - makes no sense to me. We all just people, be mates with people you like and don't befriend those you don't. It baffles me - that here in 2014, we still have this draconian stance over some things, and the powers that be have the audacity to try and impose restrictions on what people are and aren't entitled to purely based on their tastes, if a man is allowed to marry a man (or a woman a woman), you are still allowed to marry a woman, you have nothing to lose where as, for some reason, the man who wants to marry the man is still fighting for that right. What is the difference between the man who wants to marry the man and the man who is marrying the woman? Exactly nothing, except some people label them as "different" and for that - they don't get the same entitlements. Granted you support a legal framework that gives them the same entitlement - but what's wrong with calling that marriage? Marriage is only between a man and woman by your definition, and arguing more than that is surely just arguing semantics?
It seems a shame that the ancient Greeks had a more progressive stance on sexuality than a good proportion of the world does some 3000 years later. Even the Romans had a more sensible approach to it than a lot of civilisations do now.
Whether this has been said or not i dont know but if you ask me if you dont need to be married for any reason really. If you love someone enough to spend the rest of your life with them, then youre going to spend the rest of your life with them. You shouldnt need a piece of paper and ceremony to decided that. And if you ask me the whole gay movement eventually devolves into getting laid and sexism. I had to work in Toronto while the Gay pride parade was going on, and it wasnt about gay pride, equality, or anything beneficial. It was naked as F*&% 40 year old men prancing around. And if they didnt fall into that catagory, they were either Lesbians or Gay guys just trying to get laid. Despite the lesbians conducting themselves respectfully, most of them are guy-loathing sexists. Its all just one big cluster-fark
Well I don't think the government should be telling a religious body who they should and shouldn't marry and I don't think the religions should be caring about marriages conducted other than within their religion. ("Render unto Caesar..." to me always said that religion should stay out of politics). In the UK it's complicated by having an established Church, ofc.
An interesting article I came across related to this very topic, which may as well be posted here: Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn't Hateful Despite being in favour of legal gay marriage, I agree with this article. I see no reason the state should have laws for gay couples which are different than those for straight, but I also see no reason to force people to do stuff like take photos if they don't want to.
To be honest, sometimes I just feel like humanity is waiting for enough old people to die so we can crack on with what we all know is coming. That being anything from, say, gay people getting married in holy buildings to simply putting up windmills so we can make electricity without endangering penguins and burning geordies down mineshafts for coal. I know that isn't a politically correct thing to say and that I deserve some degree of lambasting for communicating it, but it is how I feel. I feel like one day, I'll have to tell my children that someone can't do that, because right now, we just aren't ready for it. And if we all run off holding hands together this instant and the slightest hiccup comes along, it'll back fire and we'll all be covered in "I told you so," conservative and religious nutjobs, spewing hate about it was "all bound to blow up in your faces sometime." "We need the nay sayers son/daughter, or they'll all lose their minds and we'll return to chaos quicker than you can say dingbats. But one day, you'll be able to do what you want. I promise." Then I'd hope and prey that I didn't just raise the next despot, serial killer or paedophile.
That's one of the cases to which I made a passing reference in my original post, and you and nexxo have cleanly expressed why I oppose Arizona's religious-specific law, yet uphold the right of a business to refuse custom for any reason.
This is an extremely contentious idea, despite it apparently being the obviously best solution to many of us in terms of maximising the ability for everyone to live in the way they want. Especially within UK "progressive" groups and leaning people, it seems to be an accepted dogma that legislation against discrimination is moral and just.
I once went out with a girl who held a strong faith (And me an atheist - it was never going to work), and she was actively involved and accepted in her church. But this wasn't her first church. She had to change church when she came out. They quite literally said she wasn't welcome. I think they would allow her to attend but wouldn't speak to her or allow her to continue to be actively involved. So she had to find a different church (Same religion, same area) that wasn't populated by bigots. The abhorrent thing about the thinking behind those attempting to stop gay marriage is them attempting to lay down the law (quite literally) and prevent any branch of the church from being an exception to the rule. I just don't get it, how can anyone really be so cruel as to think it's okay to stamp out tolerance in others?
As a non-religious person, it's hard to see why so many get worked up about a word. Call all current marriages, even opposite-sex, civil unions and be done with it for all I care (Might be influenced by my environment here, Washington recognizes both gay and straight unions as "marriage"). Particularly for a secular government, the church plays no part in the legal marriage process and as such should have no influence on it. Or go entirely to common law. Let people decide for themselves who they want to marry and how. Continuing on this subject real quick, I agree with this stance. For a private business wholly owned and operated by natural persons the right to choose who they do business with, as justified by their own individual freedoms, sounds fairly reasonable. Basing it on the religious beliefs of the business owner changes the spirit of the bill. It goes from the freedom of an individual, to the power for one group to discriminate against others. And then the problems you outline with no restrictions on who could claim this right. It seems very dangerous, and I'm glad to see it vetoed.
Well, part of joining AA is that you're supposed to try not to drink alcohol any more. I don't really get why someone would think that an entire group/club/whatever should change beliefs which are so fundamental to them. Christianity is fairly explicitly opposed to homosexuality, calling a church bigoted because they won't accept a person who lives a life that flies in the face of their beliefs seems misguided to me. That's coming from an atheist who thinks belief in the super-natural is ridiculous, I might add.
Well said. I think it's calling a spade a spade. They're entitled to have bigoted rules in their club if they want to, but they are still bigoted rules.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. Equal rights before the law should be a given. Nexxo, the rules might be bigoted, but their club, their rules right?
In fact, freedom of speech means that you're allowed to call them "gay", since the slang usage and therefore implied meaning of that word has shifted once again in the 21st century
