Gay Marriage is not even a political issue to discuss.

Amidst all the hemming and hawing, and purity and acceptance, and heated emotions and rightousness, almost everyone seems to miss the key point here:
Marriage is a religious concept and the word and has no place in voting booths or courthouses. When did separation of church and state get tossed out the window? My whole life I've seen religion push it's way into government with moderate success. In government the only issued would be about gays in civil unions, which quite obviously should be no problem. In fact, that I even thought to bring it up is a blemish on our morals and values. Gay marriage should only be discussed in the religious arena and what any church or mosk or temple or whatever decides is right. It is - for the members of that church. Get your religion out of my politics! (well you got your politics in my religion...)

Originally posted by verbal kint
Amidst all the hemming and hawing, and purity and acceptance, and heated emotions and rightousness, almost everyone seems to miss the key point here:
Marriage is a religious concept and the word and has no place in voting booths or courthouses. When did separation of church and state get tossed out the window? My whole life I've seen religion push it's way into government with moderate success. In government the only issued would be about gays in civil unions, which quite obviously should be no problem. In fact, that I even thought to bring it up is a blemish on our morals and values. Gay marriage should only be discussed in the religious arena and what any church or mosk or temple or whatever decides is right. It is - for the members of that church. Get your religion out of my politics! (well you got your politics in my religion...)

your right...religous people don't care about religous freedom... they care
about which master they want the people to follow and obey. didn't we already fight a war about this. all the religous people and their leaders need to back off and tend to their own lives and not try and judicate ours. this is (supposedly) a free country, and their push into politics has gotten way out of hand, they need a good slap-down by the rest of us. but somehow the rest of the people think this is rude or unseemly. to hell with them, they should go back to their churches and their pious worshipping of a mythical being.

The whole thing is absolutely absurd!

A few things, if I may:

First: Calling it civil unions or marriage is simply splitting hairs. You can call a turkey a chicken but its still a turkey. Arguing over the semantics is getting everyone nowhere and detracts from the real issue; banning peoples right to be free because some people dont agree when its NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!

Second: what right does ANY govt (especially one that touts freedom at every turn) have to tell you who you can and cannot share a union with? Oh yeah I know.... the most hypocritical piece of # lying country that has ever existed... the hypocritical states of America.

So govt has the right to tell us what is appropriate in our own homes and bedrooms and love lives? That sounds more like a strict parent than a govt that is supposed to SERVE US!


Third: I am married. My wife and I have not had our marriage tainted because there are "gay" couples who agree to be joined in union. ANYONE that does feel threatened by it has some serious issues within themselves and should probably get help. WHY? cause its NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS who sleeps with whom.....period end of point.... simply put mind your own business. Problem is: most hypochristians are completely incapable of doing this. They just cant seem to keep the hell out of everyone elses lives. They feel the need to save everyone.... well guess what... go save yourselves.. hypocrites!



Lastly: the fact that this is even an issue in this nation shows just how shallow and pedantic this country has become. Pathetic, and completely ignorant of what the word freedom and liberty for all man entails.


I weep for this nation that has swallowed itself in its own ignorance. May god have mercy on the oppressors souls.



end of rant.... and thank you for your time,

Tone

Marriage isn't even about sex/sleeping with someone. It's the commitment of one soul to another. There is one thing that needs to exist before a marriage can exist, either in the eyes of the Law *or* in the eyes of God, and that is love. Neither a church nor a government is in any position to validate such a thing. Who ever gave them the right? Why do we accept it? Maybe it's time we start taking that responsibility upon ourselves. That and many, many more.

Maybe we need to remake our societies. We've let "administration" get out of hand. They need to get out of our beds, out of our families, out of our education, out of our health, out of our wallets, out of our businesses and out of our jobs.

We have to take back our right to self-determination. They aren't giving it back.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


Amen my friends. But cosmicegg, yours actually gave me goose bumps. The funny thing is (consume grain of salt) it seems to me that most every person I know, meet, overhear, read, etc, etc. Generally has opinions about freedom, government, foreign policy, and the USA in general that are akin to what is being said here. So why was the election so close? (yes I know comparatively to the past it was a blow out). Really, even the most conservative, prejudiced bigots I know were saying, "Ya know, that 'n-word' seems like an alright guy..." I experience a landslide more along the lines of 80% v. 20%. Point is, my best observational skills tell me that we're all sitting around on the same team, not doing anything. We seem to think that nearly half the country are these closed minded, totally ignorant, buttheads. I don't think they are. I'm starting to think we're just TOLD they are. When the reality may very well be that we actually are running this place, we're just letting a cunning 2% of us tell us where to go.

Originally posted by verbal kint
Marriage is a religious concept and the word and has no place in voting booths or courthouses.

Wait... I was married in a courthouse.
I had to apply to the STATE for a license.
I had to sign a LEGAL document (and so did everyone who is married)
My marriage is a LEGAL contract (and so is everyone else's)
There were no religious words spoken and no religious people present at my marriage. Mine is a TOTALLY secular marriage. No religion whatsoever.

Where do you get the idea that marriage is EXCLUSIVELY a religious concept?

My marriage, and many marriages in this country, have nothing to do with religion.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Exactly my point. You did not do a single thing of religious nature and the word "marriage" was applied to every part of the process. The you go over to a church across the street and the two people taking vows before their priest and whatever other religious rituals they may engage in, are also executing the process of marriage. Pick whatever words you like, so long as they differentiate between these two proceedings. The point is, by calling both marriage you create the argument we are seeing here. It seems ridiculously obvious that these are different procedures, overseen by two distinct governing entities, that just happen to both be called "marriage". Since religious entities have a more difficult time changing things, it is prudent to change the name of the 'state' procedure. All those things you mentioned yourself doing should be called a civil union or some other term - basically anything other than "marriage".

Really, if the gov't had had a little more presence of mind and called the all the legal proceedings of marriage, "Civil Union" or "Pair Unification", i doubt there would be more than a handful of people having any issues with the gender of the pair's individuals. And if the church was appalled by same sex unification, it would be no skin of anyone's back for them to proclaim that "unified pairs of same sex indiviuals are NOT marriages recognized by the church and that all the persons persons engaging in associated sins of the flesh would burn in hell for eternity, I doubt anyone outside the church would have issue with their right to ban gay marriage.

does that help you see my point? It's not so much about defining what the process of "marriage" is. It's about designating what it is not. if it's religious then it is NOT a legal term. If it is the governmental procedures then it is NOT about the ceremonies taking place in places of worship... otherwise I think it's be more appropriate to conduct marriages inside banks.

reply to post by verbal kint


No they are not different procedures.

They are the same thing. It started as Religous law way back in our European roots.

However, now it is a secular thing. Marriage does not belong to one certain religion. Christianity has monogamous marriages and other relgions have polygamous marriages.

Marriage, which started as a man purchasing a woman as property or political gain, has been adapted into all of our cultural institutions in a ver organic manner over many centuries. These academic assumptions of some sort of distinctions are just mental masturbations to be honest.

In America Marriage is a legal proceeding that happens to be practiced differently among many different cultures which live in America. The legal form of marriage is not a civil union, but a nonsectarian marriage. One which every American is free to engage in.

Now, America already has a vestigal element from Christianity, which is the monogamous nature of legal marriage (i.e. polygamy and bigamy are crimes). And the Gay question is still another vestigal relic of the Christian roots of our society.

Ultimately this is a question of whether or not we leave the exclusive Christian specific morals in the law or allow all members of America to engage in those moral aspects of our law, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The reason gays are bucking for marriage rights is that they want, and rightly deserve, to have their unions and both the rights and responsibilities associated therein to be recognized/legitimized. Imagine spending and sharing your life with someone only to be told when one of them is ill that they aren't a family member and as such are unable to make a decision on that person's behalf. Can you imagine how that would feel? It's the *rights* and *responsibilities* afforded an official union that they are lacking. It has nothing to do with caring what the church or state like or don't like or whether anyone feels threatened by said union. It has to do with their rights to be in a normal, loving, giving and sharing relationship like everyone else and anyone who cannot see that needs to be stripped of their rights for a few years to afford a chance for a bit of compassion to grow within their stony heart.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I agree with the vast majority of your post. I also agree that the concept of marriage across the globe share similar if not the same roots. They were one in the same for the vast majority of history. That came to an end (supposedly) in the US when we declared the separation of church and state. In our pursuit of liberty, it was recognized that due to the exclusionary nature of monotheism, the only influence of the church upon the state was to encourage limitation of certain rights & liberties and to inspire harm against heretics. Basically the antithesis of our ideals. Thus, church and state. It was at that point that we failed to clarify this issue and have been sandbagging it ever since. It worked for over 200 years - any alternative challenging the fundamental nature of heterosexual intimacy was systematically suppressed. As with all things held in denial, the truth and reality has bubbled to the surface. Our sandbag wall, protecting us from the fag and dyke viruses is proving woefully inadequate.

Without getting buried in the sociology of homosexuality, let it suffice to say that fear is a significant factor in those who oppose letting go of the stigma thrust upon homosexuality. And what do people do when they're afraid? The look for a protector. Unfortunately, that usually means government. Not just out of a weakness in those seeking protection, but largely because the societal structure this government promotes gives very few options OTHER than government.

So post-sexual revolution america has been kinda scary for quite a few people. Not flee! run away! scary, but scary like having your base assumptions challenged by reality. As such, the concerned individuals look to the State to criminalize that which is challenging their foundation. I passed out. I'm just gonna post this...
zzzzz...