It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue? How Do We Untie This Knot?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
It can't be both. We know that some Christian Churches accept homosexuality and will conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples as do some Judaic Temples and very rarely has an Imam (Islamic religious leader) given a blessing for a same sex couple.

Christian

Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from those who practice progressive Christianity. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC" ., the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[2][3] Numerous progressive congregations and organizations within mainline christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for marriage equality, have spoken out themselves in support of equal marriage rights in the church and through the state.[4]


Even within the Roman Catholic Church, there is a bit of internal dissent. For example, while the Vatican and most of the Roman Catholic hierarchy oppose same sex marriages, there are some Catholic theologians who support gay marriages.[30]


Judaic

Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.[40] The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.[41]
Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, in part as an expression of their belief that scripture requires monogamy of all sexually active couples.[42]


Buddhist

Due to the ambivalent language about homosexuality in Buddhist teachings, there has been no official stance put forth regarding the issue of marriage between members of the same gender.[43]


Hindu

There are both conservative and liberal views about homosexuality and same-sex marriages in Hinduism, similar to many other religions. A liberal view is presented by Mathematician Shakuntala Devi, in her 1977 book, The World of Homosexuals, in which she interviewed Srinivasa Raghavachariar, head priest of the Srirangam temple. He said that same-sex lovers must have been cross-sex lovers in a former life. The sex may change but the soul retains its attachments, hence the love impels these souls towards one another.[46] In 2002, Ruth Vanita (writer/reporter for GALVA - The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, Inc.) interviewed a Shaiva priest who performed the marriage of two women; he told me that, having studied Hindu scriptures, he had concluded, “Marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or female” (p. 147).[47]


Islam

The majority of Muslim legal scholars cite the rulings of Muhammad and the story of Lot in Sodom as condemnation of homosexuality. Given that Islam views marriage as an exchange between two parties of protection and security for exclusive sexual and reproductive rights, same-sex marriages cannot be considered legal within the constrains of a Muslim marriage. However, this ruling does not prevent them from occurring.[94]

wiki

Many religious opponents of same sex marriage are concerned about the encroachment on Freedom of Religion. Personally, I don't like exclusion but I reluctantly have to agree that exclusion works both both ways. Much in the same way that over zealous feminists tried to, with some success, gain entrance into "men only clubs" it sort of backfired when men began to gain admission into "women only clubs". This is a tough argument for me because I worry about the path both sides lead to. I worry that too many will be forced to accept something in a very private way (religiously) that they fundamentally disagree with, I also worry that too many will use religion as an excuse to discriminate.

My concern about the governments role is that by taking the stance that it does with insisting it is a matter of States Rights. I don't agree that is up to the individual State. I believe that by the federal government not recognizing Civil Unions as equally as it does Marriage, has defined same sex couples as second class citizens. We are not supposed to have second class citizens in the United States of America.


When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

-The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
-Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
-Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.


The federal government awards special status to married couples. If same sex marriage is to be differed to States because it is an issue of religion, than it needs to not reward couples entering a state of Holy Union.


The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 federal laws that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States:

-Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons. This may be advantageous to some couples, not so for others. One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.
-Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachusetts-specific but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.
-Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits.

factcheck

I think the federal government either needs to start recognizing Civil Unions or stop recognizing Holy Unions.
edit on 12-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
“Marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or female”

I also live by 1 rule and that rule is "Freewill"



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
It's neither business to push their agenda onto others. Period. And shouldn't be an issue.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Its not a Government issue
Its not a religious issue
Its a PERSONNEL issue !



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue?

Neither.

It should simply be a personal choice, which should not have any correlation to the government or the church. None of their dam business.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I agree that it is a personal issue and choice. However the government long ago chose to recognize the religious definition of marriage as the legal definition of marriage...


Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

and thus awarded special status to married couples as I stated in my OP, and making it an issue for both government and religion. Now how do we go about fixing it? Do we tell the Fed to revoke the special status awarded to married couples or do we tell the Fed to extend them to same-sex civil unions?

I think the most obvious answer is to not differentiate between the two. The legal definition of marriage needs to be reformed from a man and a woman to two consenting adults. On the other hand, activists in support of same sex marriage need to not demand that all religious institutions accept and perform such. People have the right to worship God as they choose same as they have the right to love and partner with whom they choose.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


why dont we just get rid of govt control of marriage. you want tax breaks? give to charities theres nothing special about marriage today you dont deserve a tax break just for tying the knot. who the hell gives a care about what churches do anyways, you dont need a priest to get married anyways.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BioSafe
 




Its a PERSONNEL issue !

I'm not being asinine. This is a sincere question.

How is it a "personnel" issue? Or did you mean personal?


edit on 5/12/2012 by Klassified because: clarity



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
They are absolutely both...and should be neither.

Government and Religion both use marriage as a control mechanism for many things and each has a vested interest. I suspect they will easily adapt to whatever issues this might initially cause and will get back to the business of exploiting it to their benefit as soon as possible.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 


I agree, unfortunately it goes way beyond tax breaks. If you read further on in my OP you will see why.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Religion wise, the Wiccan people also accept homosexual marriage and the priestess is willing to do their ceremony to bless them. but I agree the religion is pushing itself too much on the strictly government issue in my mind. They are using their little power to sway the people to agree with them.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
It shouldn't be an issue with either Goverment or Religion.
Its a bonding between two people that love and care for
each other.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I personally stay away from this topic, I am not for or against same sex marriage... just being neutral to the entire thing....

There should be no issues from religious nor government organizations... It is no one's business when 2 people are together... no issues whatsoever..... BUT its not Natural.... not natural at all.... I don't know and probably no ones does, how and why we were created... but we do know that it takes only one type of relationship to reproduce... natural, miracle whatever it is... just like 2 puzzle pieces they fit together... BUT still....



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocks123
I personally stay away from this topic, I am not for or against same sex marriage... just being neutral to the entire thing....

There should be no issues from religious nor government organizations... It is no one's business when 2 people are together... no issues whatsoever..... BUT its not Natural.... not natural at all.... I don't know and probably no ones does, how and why we were created... but we do know that it takes only one type of relationship to reproduce... natural, miracle whatever it is... just like 2 puzzle pieces they fit together... BUT still....


What if it was natural? There are many examples of homosexuality in nature. To say that just because reproduction requires a male and female, doesn't necessarily negate it. For that matter, what about bisexuality?

For all we now, it could be nature's way of population control.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Any person of faith who believes that the government has legitimate authority over sacraments either has a very high opinion of the government or a very low opinion of sacraments.
Tom Head

The only reason government should ever be involved with marriage is if your religion is one of government worship.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

My concern about the governments role is that by taking the stance that it does with insisting it is a matter of States Rights. I don't agree that is up to the individual State. I believe that by the federal government not recognizing Civil Unions as equally as it does Marriage, has defined same sex couples as second class citizens. We are not supposed to have second class citizens in the United States of America.



Why should the states and THE PEOPLE
not have the right to vote pass and have a say
if THEIR state will accept gay marriage..

It is none of the federal governments business
what the states want to do with this matter..

Start letting the feds decide everything and
we will end up far worse off. THEY have their
hand in everything and it should be up TO THE PEOPLE
not the rule of a small few... INSANE



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


It's none of the states business period. On federal, state, or local level.

Interpersonal affairs are just that.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


It's none of the states business period. On federal, state, or local level.

Interpersonal affairs are just that.


Let the PEOPLE DECIDE..

If it is passed, it is passed, if it is not, it is not..

Why should a small few be able to take everyone
by the cahones because they say so...



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


So let the 50 people in the apartment building on your street decide whether or not you should marry the person you love.

It's the will of the majority after all.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


So let the 50 people in the apartment building on your street decide whether or not you should marry the person you love.

It's the will of the majority after all.


No let the people state by state decide..
If the PEOPLE want it in their state, let them do it
if a state DOES NOT want it, it doesn't get done.
Simple as that, everystate has more then 50 people*??
across the street at the apartment building...
What if it was a majority of homosexual in the apartment building,
how do you know which way they swing??
Good for what YOU want then..
Let the people vote!!!!
edit on 12-5-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join