Marriage is a commitment to stick together, but why? Surely it only makes sense to stick with someone if you're happy with them, unless it's to make a family? If commitment to family is therefore the only reason for marriage, what's the point in gay marriage if you don't allow gay couples to adopt?
Yeah, but in the US. she can't be fired for any of the above. LOL My God doesn't choose - any who accept are welcome. John
One thing I didn't see anyone else mention is the concept of "separation of church and state". Is it only a one way deal? True Several points there - your first was quite amusing by the way. The only other thing I'll touch on there is the "hatred of the Gay cause". In my personal experience I've seen very little hate from the church toward gay people - though I admit that it sometimes exists and sometimes in great amounts - but it is contrary to the Bible I read. That, however does not mean sympathy to their cause. What I have seen is a lot of hatred of churches from gay people. Makes sense to me That statement is only true if there is / was no creator. That's a whole other debate. I wouldn't be so sure of that. Sorry dude, gotta call BS on that one (and what a major load that is). There are, and have been, religions in which sex was central to worship. Additionally, the command for love can be found in the first books that founded the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions (and many others I'm sure). Additionally, any serious study of even the Old Testament of the Bible will also show the both Christians and Jews should believe that sex was designed by God for pleasure as well as procreation. Quoted For Truth
Oh yeah, I suppose it encompasses in-laws as rather than just parents and their children. Still, here's a question: if you were re-designing society from scratch, what justification would you use for adding "marriage" as a concept to it?
The only problem is that "respective places" part. See, I always fear the power of stupid people in large groups. The concept of religion as a whole is one that I not only agree with but actively value in society (though myself, I choose a more non-affiliated path). However, the way to get "up in the ranks" of religion as a career (which, to me, is a whole separate argument in and of itself) is to be persuasive and have a deep, non-flinching and non-challenging view of your faith. Essentially, the higher in the ranks you rise, the more you see the world as black and white that is defined by your group's interpretations of your chosen holy book. The more of a life you make of it, the less you think about it, challenge it, understand it...you lose yourself to devotion of it. (Please note the very sharp delineation of "it" to mean the Church, NOT the God/Llama/What-have-you). All groups want a bigger share of the pie, which grants more resources and a greater likelihood of future survival. When you reward narrower thinking and better speechifying by putting THOSE people at the seat of decision-making power, you develop a rather awful form of control. These people want to grow the Church, to be seen as successful in their careers and to find comfort in the masses believing their chosen faith. They start to look to influence leaders...they champion that the Church IS morality, and thus those who do not follow (especially those in the limelight) are amoral. They prey on an individual's fears and needs to feel accepted and safe and find some resolution to the big question of "what happens when I kick off?" And the worst of them (fundamentalists of all faiths, save maybe Buddhists) use those fears to create armies of people that can rationalize basic inhumanities and sins such as racism, murder and oppression under the "belief" of "faith". So I guess the problem in my eyes doesn't really lie with the individuals who practice a faith intelligently and with a somewhat critical eye - my issue is that religion as a career rewards the ones who don't.
Depends on what you think of as God. I don't believe there is a big ol' white guy with a long beard up there, but then again I think that there are many Christians who don't either. People's ideas about "God" can be remarkably complex and abstract. They can be, well, meta. Thruth, beauty, love; such concepts transcend questions of fact and what is "real". I believe that to ask whether God exists is a Zen question --it is the act of asking that matters, not the answer. Science and faith, like head and heart, are complementary. You can't have one without the other. Relationships are partnerships. It is not just about sticking together as long as you are happy, because you are not always going to be happy --it is about sticking together even when times are hard. That's what the whole "in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer" refers to. Good times don't mean anything if you can't count on each other in the bad times. Marriage is a promise to stand by your partner. No, but if the church wants to be an exclusive membership club with its own rules, it will have to pay the taxes of one. I guess some people read a different Bible. It is this vocal extremist minority that catches all the attention (after all not all gay people dance around in leather thongs and feathers at the Gay Pride Parade either). Frankly if gay people are denied certain services or priviliges that are pretty fundamental to our culture and society such as marriage (with all the legal protection it affords), adoption of children and medical treatment, and their lifestyle is denounced as wrong all on the basis of religion, then you're going to get a lot of gay people feeling hostile towards religious institutions. Go figure. And a moot one. If the existence of an inventor cannot be proved or disproved, then neither can his claim to a patent. Agreed, but I am talking about religious institutions, the relation of which to religion is roughly the same as that of the MacDonalds franchise to food. As Da Dego says: Of course, similar corrupting processes can occur in science, where careers (and funding) are built on theories. This is why Einstein believed that science should be practised as a hobby, not a profession.
Just wanted to plug this in. A supreme court justice, not appointed to the case in question who happens to be a family friend stated that there is no illegality on banning gay marriage. Reason being that the anti-discrimination laws currently in place don't rule out the specific nature of gender requirement that applies across the board. Being that the requirement to marry one of the opposing gender is equally enforced to both genders. I understand this type of ruling has been an olden day issue dealing with race, but he mentioned that there was nothing specifically regarding gender. I don't suppose anyone has the resources to validate or discredit this? Nexxo?
Yup. The whole thing hangs and falls on the legal defnition of "gender", see? The legal system struggles with trans-gender issues, in which it often stubbornly maintains that the transgendered person is the gender that their body was born with, irrespective of the subsequent gender re-alignment (for instance, transgender people cannot marry people of the same sex that they used to be --physically). The flaw in their stance is that transgendered people were never the gender that their body was born with --gender is in the head, not between the legs. When you consider sexual orientation, things get even more complex. Although the two are generally strongly correlated, they are distinct and separate orientations. Just because you feel male does not have to mean you feel sexually attracted to females and vice versa. Arguably, genders are multiple: "straight" genders, "gay" genders and "bisexual" ones. So discrimination against gay people is discrimination based on gender, in as much as they are considered to have the "wrong" gender for their sexual orientation. They can't marry their preferred partner because they are considered not to have the "right" gender to.
Man, it's been a long time since I worked on this question. First off-some of these organizations are not churches, such as Catholic Charities. We're gonna drop them off these statements, and let them fend for themselves. All right. Now, to clarify some points from the "religious" perspective (and we all know I take the standpoint of faith, but since many have muddied the water here...) 1. The direct quote from the Bible is in Leviticus, the book of laws for life which defined holiness to the entire Jewish people. It is, verbatim, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable to the Lord." That point being established, now if you believe in this book, being forced to support those who act against that statement openly would cause a real personal problem. 2. In that above statement, there is a distinction to be drawn. The ACTION is said to be detestable. The PERSON is never said to be so. People today on both sides of the argument are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. 3. Also valid and important if we look at this from a viewpoint of understanding-the Bible furthermore states that even if you know an action is not sinful, if another person is not as strong in their faith, do not make them stumble. If you must, work with the lowest common denominator to build them up to where you are, so that none are ignored or turned away. If these religious organizations believe that gay marriage is a sin, and support it anyway, they are tacitly agreeing with those actions to people whose faith is less developed. Conflict of interest to say the least. 4. If I'm not mistaken, the church is a private institution, fully capable of saying us only (think of Communion) and in many cases, these people crying let us in are doing so because they want validation for their lifestyles. Separation of church and state kinda does run both ways. Charities can pick and choose who they serve, and so why not the church? Most of the arguments presented here have been pretty ill-formed on that one. The precedent is in place, especially on conscientious objection. There are services and ceremonies which are members only-business meetings, the aforementioned communion, and many churches will only offer marriage to their members. (that's more of a gray area, as some churches rent their facilities, as does the one I am associated with, but the applicants still must meet certain criteria, and I have seen people turned away. They still got married.) 5. To most of the world, there is a huge difference between what people define as legal and moral. Given the choice, most people hold themselves up to the higher standard of moral. And, if they feel that the legal system will not protect them from the immoral, they may well withdraw, but many would mount countersuit. And, based on the evidence herewith, it would be hard for them to lose, unless the court was to just utterly ban religion-which is an impossible move. The trappings would disappear, but the reality is the faith would not. And, since the same argument holds true for being forced to do something you believe is immoral, I don't think they'd be served very well. To me, marriage does predate law, as for any Christian the first marriage was Adam and Eve in the Garden. Telling us that it's no longer a "religious" thing is sure to draw fire from multiple directions, and then to attempt to dictate what it is is just kinda stupid. Go get a civil union, if you want. But if you want the accorded benefits of a religious ceremony, expect to at least attempt to fall in line with the accepted doctrine. It's well within the church's rights to deny that. And anyone who works under contract, such as photographers, is free to not accept any contract, for any reason. Same goes for taxi drivers. In these circumstances, we are enabling the same behaviors we are denouncing-the only choice that looks right is to abstain from services. There, you've got the opinion of someone who's "jumped through the hoops" to become a minister. In my case, I kept logic fully intact, as well as a great love and appreciation for science. So please, stop stereotyping us as well. Some people of faith are just as normal as you or me, it's the nutjobs that ruin it. And please, if you're going to attack, take the time to work it out with logic, as some of us have done.
Thank you for that logical, informed and above all balanced contribution. I agree on some points, disagree on others. But I think it mostly boils down to definitions. Is this instruction aimed at men only? Or both sexes? We may be misinterpreting what "lying with a man as with a woman" means. Perhaps it is not even about sex... Some actions are part of who you are: to do is to be (think of going to church, for instance. ). Having sex with someone is not necessarily just an action. It can be a bonding ritual that is very personal and intimate. It is act of love. It is certainly part of how my wife and I define ourselves, each other and our relationship which we feel is central to our existence. If someone says our love is "detestable", sinful and should be stopped, sorry, but they are commenting on us as a couple and on something that is deeply personal and precious to us. We'd tell them to **** right off. Like someone criticising your religious beliefs, it feels very personal. I suspect gay couples feel the same way. Agreed, and they don't have to support it. But some religious organisations would like to dictate law, and some of their members would like to exercise their opinions in public professions. That is beyond their remit. That is imposing on other people how they should live. And we all know where that tends to end... Again, totally agree. The church does not have to marry gay people in its own domain. Nobody is entitled to a church wedding. But it can't stop gay people marrying at the registry office. That is a legal, public thing, outside of the domain of the church. However it is generally the church community that campaigns against the legal right for gay people to marry at all --who is looking for validation of their lifestyle now? Conversely, religious institutions cannot ignore the law just because they perceive it to offend religious principles. Down that path lies terrorism. To you. To me, marriage is the logical and evolutionary extention of monogamy practised in tribal cultures and animals before us. Each to their own. The church can have its wedding ceremonies, and exclude gay people from their club if it feels it must. Gay people can have legal marriage ceremonies in registry offices. Nobody is entitled to a church wedding, but neither does the church hold the exclusive licence to marriage. Agreed about the professions: each has a right to chose their customer --with the exception of certain public services. Doctors do not get to chose their patients; police officers do not get to chose which people they protect and serve. Beyond that, it's just market forces.
I agree, it does boil down to definitions, and I don't agree with the church making the law per se. The quotation is about sex, as it is enclosed in a section called "unlawful sexual practices". Additional passages (and I've just stepped out of the shower out to get my tattoo finished, no exacts this time) in the NT also use the term homosexuality explicitly. The message is always hate the sin, love the sinner and through LOVE, not beatings or social sanction attempt to change their actions. And remember, I validated my last statement with "to me". I added that, in a post of logic, an opinion because I thought the thread needed the view of a person of faith who wasn't insane. There is a severe anti-religion bias going, and I don't care to see it if I'm presenting logic and not knee-jerk arguments. An addenda to that personal opinion. If the state sees fit to grant a civil union license, with summary legal benefits, that is their own business and I frankly see it as inevitable. However, I do not then have to give the benefit of a church ceremony because they have a state issued piece of paper. I also do not have to recognize that as a marriage by the Biblical definition of marriage. However, in the cases that I know, I have no problem inviting that person to my church, to my home, working beside them, letting them help with my children or calling them brothers and sisters, both in the general sense and in the Christian sense. I have no pretensions about "catching gay" or any other BS like that. I still see them as a couple, and will refer to them that way, though I still use both last names. Where I live, that view is still revolutionary. People still don't like me for it. However, assaulting that logic is kinda hard for them as it is fully in line with my beliefs and most of them have no concept of logic anyway. However, if the same person who hates me for helping them is poor and destitute and I have, I will share with them just as equally. If they refuse to accept it, that is on their head. The argument goes both ways. Churches that may have no problem with helping may find their numbers diminished and therefore their ability to help weakened by a progressive stand. It's a hard place to be in, if you have principles. Your parents hated misbehavior, but they loved you, right? Look at it that way for the Bible's view. Anything less is a corruption of the truth.
That is about the most sane opinion on the matter I've seen from someone who is a Christian, KayinBlack. Although I eschew organized religion, it does have relevance for many people. If the "state" got out of the business of morals and the "church" got out of politics and legalities, we would all be better off.
If you really want to get knocked to your knees watch this performance Oh, and if by "mountains" you mean Colorado then you should keep checking the listings for the Mercury Cafe in Denver or the Nomad Theater in Boulder. Andrea and vox feminista (.org) have regular shows there.
Agree so far... Given the culture in which you live, it is extraordinarily broad-minded --which makes me feel like a bit of a pedant and a **** for pointing out to you that still using both last names kind of spoils the whole thing. Then again sorry, but it does. You wouldn't want me to call you by a different title than you define yourself by, say "Bible basher" instead of "Christian" or "Minister" just because I may have my own particular opinion about the validity of Christianity and the ministerial role (I wouldn't, by the way, I'm just talking for argument's sake). Because the title you define yourself by is kind of personally important to you. So you can still call them Mr. and Mr. Jones even if you don't define the loving bond that they have a "marriage" in your Christian frame of reference. Yeah, but then Christ knew all about that, didn't he? If the behaviour they hate defines me, then they hate me. I think this is something people forget: homosexuality is NOT just an "act" or "behaviour". It is what gay people are. The loving bond between two gay people can be just as intimate, meaningful and sacred as that between a straight couple (as Andrea gibson above illustrates). We do not get to disrespect it just because it doesn't fit our personal frameworks of intimate relationships. If we do that, it will be taken personally.
I'm sorry but the original article is retarded. even I am vaguely religious, in that I believe that something made the earth etc etc. y family, and by extension the church I go to (and when I say "go to", I mean as little as is humanly possible) have driven me so far away from organised religion that I'd sooner believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster than God! At the end of the day, why don't we just get rid of all the "voices of Jesus and God" and put one of "St. Peter"'s descendents back in charge. And for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, you need to watch South Park a bit more! Lol. Joe
So that a Partner a gets the right to see Partner B in hospital so that Partner a gets the right to inherit Partner B if they die So that the children involved (if any) And so they can do this without having to give a frak about the parents of either side. Marriage is 2 people who wish to spend their life together and share legal rights The Separate but equal argument sounds very similar but the fact of the matter is that seperate is never equal Let's do some word swapping Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman Marriage is between 1 White man and 1 White woman Marriage is between 1 Jewish person and another Jewish person you cannot mix Marriage is between 1 man of a certain class and 1 woman of a certain class after it has been arranged by their parents (no mixing classes now)
