Why Are So Many People Debating About Gay Marriages? You've All Got It All Wrong!

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

At the end of the day even you feel your beliefs are more important than everyone else's

Speak for yourself? Especially since you quoted my comment that is limited to most religious persons.

it's one thing to say most persons...

it's a whole other thing to state "We believe..." for other people.

Hello

...or

to flat out tell a person what they believe!

again at most, it might be okay to say most people, or most of you... sheesh

but to say all of you, or you beleive... wow

so the church started this business scheme to actualize marriage,, just like they actuallize spirituality,, and now society thinks only the magical church can truly give a license to two people, so they can live together and get the legal,financial, medical benefits a married couple gets?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
is this not an easy solution,,,, who cares about religion and churches,, it has nothing to do with anything,, why is the legal system mixed up with churches anyway,, they shouldn't need to start their own church,,

It is an easy solution, get Govt. out of marriage
Once you do that then no special rights for certain groups but no special rights for no groups
and when I say special right I mean a non-human right where govt. should stay out of

The problem with the U.S. is that it's so divided, it's only THIS divided because govt. is involved
And then during elections candidates want your votes, so they cater to the largest group in a given area

but if they have no responsibility with marriage or rights then no groups gets denied anything
Govt. doesn't give you rights, it takes it away from specific groups & gives it to other groups

As others have said, it's more to do with legal aspect of marriage, and not the religious aspect. I can understand why someone might make that mistake though, since not many people bring that up.

Originally posted by TruckDriver69
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

So if I was against gay marriage for any number of reasons no matter how civil I was, I should be ridiculed, mocked and ignored.

That is the very reason the gay community has had a hard time making inroads. Its an in your face, gay pride parade and damn the social graces attitude of the very small minority that speaks for the majority in that movement. Your advice is a prime example of how not to persuade..

It's hard to respect a group of people who want to deny a group of people a civil right for incredibly idiotic reasons, no matter how civil they may be. It's also hard to persuade them for the same reason.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
Face it,

most religious persons stand by their beliefs as more important than others rights.

Unfortunately!

If a strict Totalitarian group such as al qaeda took over the entire city of the "I don't accept Homosexuality" group - - forcing them to adhere to their strict "moral" way of life.

I doubt they would be patient and tolerant and accepting.

I bet they would say it is unfair and al qaeda should not force their beliefs on them.

I bet they would react/respond more like me - - - in how I view those who use their belief to deny equal rights to Homosexuals.

Church? Church shouldn't be involved or up for discussion as long as there IS separation of church and state.

Is there?

There is, as long as personal beliefs aren't interjected into equal marriage rights.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
Face it,

most religious persons stand by their beliefs as more important than others rights.

Unfortunately!

If a strict Totalitarian group such as al qaeda took over the entire city of the "I don't accept Homosexuality" group - - forcing them to adhere to their strict "moral" way of life.

I doubt they would be patient and tolerant and accepting.

I bet they would say it is unfair and al qaeda should not force their beliefs on them.

I bet they would react/respond more like me - - - in how I view those who use their belief to deny equal rights to Homosexuals.

Exactly, look at Iran's new government (the one installed by USA a few decades ago) - for the past few decades, men have been given the death penalty just for loving another man or men romantically. Amadinejad himself said "Iran has no gays". They are allowed to have homosexual sex behind closed doors, but if you are openly/effeminately gay, you deserve and are dealt the death penalty.

Is that how American's marriage law should remain? Cause basically right now its the same - if you want to be married, you must chose the opposite sex, only. Otherwise you are condemned for the rest of your life as single.

NOT fair.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
Cause basically right now its the same - if you want to be married, you must chose the opposite sex, only. Otherwise you are condemned for the rest of your life as single.

NOT fair.

Unfortunately there's something called common-law partners

And even without common-law you are still incorrect if you read my earlier posts

Actually it is you that has it wrong. First you have to remove the religious component of marriage. No matter what the state recognizes, it can not force a religious institution to perform a gay marriage.Will some people try to achieve that end? Probably there will always be those that aren't satisified. It doesn't make them right or mean it will happen.

Now that you have taken out all the religious mumbo jumbo, you have to take a look at the State's role in marriage. The state can and does perform marriage ceremonies and in doing so confers upon them specific and exclusive rights. This is where gay marriage has it's complaints and they are right to have them. There is no legitimate reason to not confer those rights to a same sex couple for any reason other than a religious one which can not be the basis for any argument made by the state for not doing so.

You can make the argument that the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. And that is a perfectly acceptable stance to take but that is not the world we live in. And then your going to have a hard time convincing all the married people that they have to give up those rights and privledges that have already been conferred on them. It is not the State's job to enforce religious belifs in it's social policy It is the State's job to ensure that everyone is treated equitably under the law, whihc in this case it is not.

And to the question "How can a man-made institution be a human right?"
Voting is a man made institution, as is religion, the exchange of ideas and self-defense. Yet you seem to have no problem with those being identified as human rights.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
Cause basically right now its the same - if you want to be married, you must chose the opposite sex, only. Otherwise you are condemned for the rest of your life as single.

NOT fair.

Unfortunately there's something called common-law partners

And even without common-law you are still incorrect if you read my earlier posts

yeah well if you have to call it something else then guess what

ITS NOT MARRIAGE

so again, why is marriage reserved for a specific sexual pairing in this day and age ie Adam and Eve lol is this Christian america or something?

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Why would we remove the religious component of marriage when it is a religious union?

2nd.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Actually it is you that has it wrong. First you have to remove the religious component of marriage. No matter what the state recognizes, it can not force a religious institution to perform a gay marriage.Will some people try to achieve that end? Probably there will always be those that aren't satisified. It doesn't make them right or mean it will happen.

Different religions ALREADY have that issue so its nothing new by allowing gays to marriage.

Ie Catholic churches may already refuse to marry any non-catholic couple just as they would refuse a gay couple.

Same difference. so, that's not an excuse as u present it to be one.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Actually it is you that has it wrong. First you have to remove the religious component of marriage.

If you remove govt. from marriage what is the need to remove religion from it?
Please explain

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
No matter what the state recognizes, it can not force a religious institution to perform a gay marriage.Will some people try to achieve that end? Probably there will always be those that aren't satisified. It doesn't make them right or mean it will happen.

Again you misunderstand
If govt. is out of the picture there is no need them to force anyone to do anything, or disallow anyone to do anything.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
You can make the argument that the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. And that is a perfectly acceptable stance to take but that is not the world we live in.

Guess what, federally accepted gay marriages are ALSO not the world we are living
But you are still pushing that though right?

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
And to the question "How can a man-made institution be a human right?"
Voting is a man made institution, as is religion, the exchange of ideas and self-defense. Yet you seem to have no problem with those being identified as human rights.

But that goes back to freedom
You have the freedom to vote and the freedom not to vote
Freedom is a human right

Originally posted by milkyway12

Why would we remove the religious component of marriage when it is a religious union?

LOL I dont recall anything in marriage law saying you must be religious.

So if you are atheist you're not allowed marriage union?

Marriage must be between a religious man and religious woman??

reply to post by BiggerPicture


LOL , i guess you missed out on the last 2000 - 10000 years of history and the last 300 years of American history.

2nd.

Yes I'm aware interracial marriage wasn't "allowed" in USA until 45 years ago.

Ironically, interracial marriage has been allowed in most of the rest of the world's countries for millenia.

reply to post by BiggerPicture


What .. ?

2nd.

reply to post by milkyway12


Because it isn't exclusively religious. The state does perform non religious marriages in addition to sanctioning religious ceremonies.The religious component is of no consequence to the argument at all. A church can marry whomever they choose to marry or not marry. Bringing religion into the argument to inform the State policy on this issue is incorrect because they have no dog in the fight. At the present time the fight does not affect their religious belief in any way, shape or form outside of their view on the behavior. It is essentially the same as having a Jewish group forcing the state to outlaw pork products because the practice goes against their belief. They have no stake in whether or not you have a ham sandwich yet are choosing to force their view on you based on their belief.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by BiggerPicture

 

LOL , i guess you missed out on the last 2000 - 10000 years of history and the last 300 years of American history.

2nd.

edit on 4-4-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

i did miss out on all that.... wasnt born yet... but now that i am here, and we are here,, im sure we can all be rational and intelligent and solve every problem,, im sure things throughout history have been found to now be wrong,,, things that were once do back then are now not done,,,,