Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


This was already addressed in these two posts, the one I am linking to and the one underneath it which was my response...

We had discussed whether Buddists prohibited homosexuality and whether or not they married.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this was my response:


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by billy197300
 


Well, why are gays and lesbians not buddists then? Then they would be afforded religious freedom and the government/state could not oppose a marriage if it is marriage they want.

but if it is rights they want, why are they not simply fighting for all people regardless of religion or creed or lack thereof to have equal rights under the law?

I honestly think more people would be behind that.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Duh, its so they can have gay babies!




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
This is a legitamite question, seeking legitamite discourse on the topic.

Marriage is a religious institution. Something in ancient times that was a bond created before peoples God. God was the one who said (according to religions) what marriage is, and what marriage is not, what the duties of the couples were to one another, and in marrying, they agree with God that they will follow His laws in their marriage.


My religion says I cannot marry someone who does not practice my religion, because I am a woman and someone who is not in my religion may not grant me the rights my religion affords me, and one of the things we say when we get married is that we will follow all applicable religous laws in the marriage.

Therefore, if I decide to marry someoone who is not in my religion, why would I marry them? My religion says I cant, so how can I enter into a contract before God saying that I will follow all the applicable laws of my religion within my marriage if I am breaking those laws at the time of entering the marriage?

Thats just dumb.

Therefore, if I decided to be with someone who was not a member of my religion, I might not marry at all, because it might not make a whole heck of a lot of sense to do so. The law does not say unless I personally think its ok, it says no, plain as day.

,
Therefore, why do gays and lesbians want to get married under a God who has already made clear His position about such a union? (obviously one of opposition to it, plain as day)

Why are gays and lesbians not fighting to simply have the same rights as married people under the law, without entering into a religious institution?

I do not get the whole wanting to marry thing at all! I get the wanting to be with someone you love, and I get its no ones business what you do in your own home so long as its not harmful to another human being....

I just do not get the whole entering into a contract before God who does not approve thing





OP, I think it's crazy you let something like religion dictate your life to such a degree. Almost sounds like others are telling you how to live your life and you're ok with that?

I don't think I will ever understand how some folks feel it's ok for an organization to take such control of their lives, but even worse than that -- they feel that the same organization should also dictate the lives of others who don't even subscribe to that point of view! Isn't that nuts?


Khar
edit on 26-7-2012 by Kharron because: typo



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


The real answer to the problem is to remove religion from state. What I mean by that is, make all marriages a union in the eyes of the government, and let the private churches and religions sort the rest out. All unions would provide the same rights regardless of gender.

This isn't something that government should stick it's nose into. The fact that some churches have been willing to marry same gender couples, shows that the idea of what constitutes a marriage needs to be sorted out by the people.


Actually close to what I was thinking is making all Civil Unions equal and a marriage is something you do in a church if you want. But you all file the same papers with the state although I hope that is not a slippery slope and Unions to Robots is acceptable at some point. Maybe just leave it at humans and then the Robots can fight for the rights in 30 years or so...



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by thebtheb



Their unwillingness to compromise on a major issue for religious folk is extremely poor form. If those people are going to carry on a fight, and actually change the basic principles of the movement then they need to stop asking for legal rights and start asking for the term marriage be defined legally by the supreme court as something different than " one Man, one woman".

~Tenth


Well that IS what they're trying to do. And while I agree with most of the rest of your post, and while I myself, a gay guy, don't give a rat's ass about marrying anyone since I consider it meaningless, I still see a relatively important difference in marriage and civil union. Wrong or right, gay people who are fighting for specifically marriage over civil union, are also fighting discrimination, religious or otherwise.


And what is that relatively important difference I might ask?

Just because they are fighting discrimination doesn't mean any of their other mantels they've taken up are right.

They're are plenty of other legitimate ways to fight discrimination of gays without having to make an already tense situation worse.

Them fighting over the meaning of a word, is not fighting discrimination. Fighting for their legal rights that they are being denied is. If it came down to where the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was protected by religion, but ordered all states to create civil union legislation to afford the same rights, how is that any different?

Them fighting over the meaning of a word is slicing hairs. It's counter-productive to the overall goal of the movement.

~Tenth


I wasn't siding with anyone here or there on the issue, just saying that they ARE fighting over being discriminated on, so a lot of them will NEVER care about your argument. They see themselves being discriminated upon legally or religiously and they don't like it. Yes, people should be able to discriminate morally and religiously on anyone. But no, the people being discriminated on do not have to like it. They're going through the legal side to try to get their way, even when a lot of their fire is derived from the religious side, so no, that doesn't fully make sense. But man, who can blame them? Not me.

For me, it's more like, "You and your religion don't like me? So what? Next page please." For others, they don't feel that way. And while it doesn't make full sense, that is their actions and reasoning don't always jive with their full motives, this IS one of the ways all things, legal, religious, moral, societal, go through change and evolve.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


This was already addressed in these two posts, the one I am linking to and the one underneath it which was my response...

We had discussed whether Buddists prohibited homosexuality and whether or not they married.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this was my response:


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by billy197300
 


Well, why are gays and lesbians not buddists then? Then they would be afforded religious freedom and the government/state could not oppose a marriage if it is marriage they want.

but if it is rights they want, why are they not simply fighting for all people regardless of religion or creed or lack thereof to have equal rights under the law?

I honestly think more people would be behind that.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


That's pretty silly actually. How do you know any particular person BELIEVES or adheres to the Buddhist tradition. You think they should join that tradition and accept all the beliefs JUST BECAUSE they're gay?

As I stated earlier, it's a matter of interpretation. And though you and others may not like it, the interpretation of the bible is different for many people. There already ARE Christian churches who marry gay people. Maybe not YOUR church, or by YOUR definition of what's appropriate, but they do exist. Therefore a gay person might WANT to be a Christian not because they're gay, but because they believe in the bible. But their belief, their interpretation of the bible, is not necessarily what yours is.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


If one believes he/she is living without no hinder on ones soul, no person can judge.

I, myself, do not approve of same sex relationships, but who am i to judge?

In the end it is between us and the Creator. What does piss me off are when gay people, and when extremists think they are just the sh#t, and the world owes them all. Everyone chooses how to live their life on earth, and we are all full of sin. No one is better than another. But, it is up to oneself to recognize and admit sin, and where we are wrong. And, not to others, but to The One that is higher than all.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Once more, I am not a Christian. My point in using the example of Buddists, is that their religion allows homosexual marriages and relations (or so I was told)

If a homosexual couple, follow a religion, and that religion does not teach against a homosexual marriage, then this is under religious discrimination.


But most gays and lesbians, always talk about rights.... I have never once on any forum any where at any time seen a gay or lesbian say my religion allows me to marry and the state is forbidding the marriage!

So my point was, if you want rights fight for rights, not marriage under religions that dont allow it, and dont fight to make a religious institution secular.....

But if it was religious discrimination, then people would be crying their constitutional rights under their particular religion....



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


It's not marriage under your god. It's about a legal status by the government. Which whether you want to believe it or not, your god has no authority over.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


correction:

In a America, you get a certificate from the person conducting the marriage, that the marriage was held, and you get a certificate from the state you are getting married in.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


In this country people are afforded legal protections for marriage under religious freedom.

This country recognises that in religion, and under religious freedom, marriage is part of that and protected by it.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


The documents we get here are both considered legal documents in other countries. That is very very important for travel.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 


Why can't you 'star' this post?
One thing I like about ATS is the freedom of speech; what's up?

Gay marriage used to be all about getting the same benefits as marriade couples. Civil unions and domestic partnerships provide those benefits so there is no need to change the age old custon of marriage.
edit on 26-7-2012 by AmericanDaughter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Once more, I am not a Christian. My point in using the example of Buddists, is that their religion allows homosexual marriages and relations (or so I was told)

If a homosexual couple, follow a religion, and that religion does not teach against a homosexual marriage, then this is under religious discrimination.


But most gays and lesbians, always talk about rights.... I have never once on any forum any where at any time seen a gay or lesbian say my religion allows me to marry and the state is forbidding the marriage!

So my point was, if you want rights fight for rights, not marriage under religions that dont allow it, and dont fight to make a religious institution secular.....

But if it was religious discrimination, then people would be crying their constitutional rights under their particular religion....


I have personally never heard of a gay person demanding that any religious organization marry them. Gays want to get a marriage license from the state. The state is not a religious organization, therefore there is no valid reason why a gay person couldn't get a marriage license, regardless of what religion he belongs to (or no religion). Unfortunately, Christian religious fundamentalists have taken hold and prevented gays from getting said marriage license from the state.

Though the Supreme Court has not agreed to rule on this as of yet, the time will come when they basically have to. They will have no other choice than to rule that since the state is not/should not be involved in religion, it is discrimination against a group to withhold a state marriage license. They may change the name to civil union license, which is fine, as long as everyone gets a civil union license from the state. Then, you can get your marriage license from your church. Or, they may decide that a marriage license from the state will still be called a marriage license. Regardless, a non-religious entity, like the state, cannot be allowed to dictate religious preferences on the subject of marriage licenses.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
edit on 26-7-2012 by kaylaluv because: lots of double posts today



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 


Why can't you 'star' this post?
One thing I like about ATS is the freedom of speech; what's up?


He's been banned (and rightly so). Broke the T&C rules too many times.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Marriage or what is recognized as such is a common and ancient practice, words that meant husband and wife as we understand this existed in the native populations for thousands of years. and it certainly insn't owned by religions.

www.aboriginalculture.com.au...

Aborigines have complex social and marriage laws, based on the grouping of people within their society. They also have a complex kinship system where everyone is related to everyone else. In order to understand the complexities of their social organisation, it is best to consider it in the following way, dividing it first into three main aspects. First, the physical structuring of society in terms of numbers – family, horde, tribe, second, the religious structuring based on beliefs and customs, totems, and marriage laws, and these beliefs divide people into moieties, sections and subsections, totemic groups, and clans. Third, there is also a kinship system that gives a social structuring. The social structuring and kinship system can become very complex and difficult to understand for non-Aboriginal people, but is a natural part of life for Aborigines, and its details vary from tribe to tribe.


www.accessgenealogy.com...


The Eskimo, except those tribes of Alaska that have been led to imitate the institutions of neighboring tribes of alien stocks, have no clan organization. Accordingly the choice of a mate is barred only by specified degrees of kinship. Interest and convenience govern the selection. The youth looks for a competent housewife, the girl for a skilled hunter. Them is no wedding ceremony. The man obtains the parents consent, presents his wife with garments, and the marriage is consummated. Frequently there are child betrothals, but, these are not considered binding. Monogamy is prevalent, as the support of several wives is possible only for the expert hunter. Divorce is as informal as marriage; either party may leave the other on the slightest pretext, and may remarry. The husband may discard a shrewish or miserly wife, and the wife may abandon her husband if he maltreats her or fails to provide enough food. In such cases the children generally remain with the mother.....


The Pueblos, representing a much higher stage of culture, shoe very different marriage conditions. The clan organization is developed, there is no purchase, and the marriage is arranged by the parents or independently by the young couple. The Zuñi lover, after bringing acceptable gifts, is adopted as a son by the father of his betrothed, and married life begins in her home. She is thus mistress of the situation: the children are hers, and she can order the husband from the house should the occasion arise.


www.weddingdetails.com...


"Native American legends and myths have existed for thousands of years and are still relevant today. Many stories are moral tales about humankind's relationship with the natural world, as well as several inspiring and poetic tales about love and the ritual of courtship. Indian poems had their roots in the songs and chants of tribal life. The Indians wrote songs and poetry for practical purposes as well as to deal with the invisible forces in their lives. They helped the people to conduct their lives honorably and assisted them through times of great emotion and need". There are many moving stories in this book about marriage, courtship and puberty rites and celebrations, including even some suggested recipes!


digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...

An historical look at this.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


That is like saying that a man or a woman should not care if they ever get married as long as the legal matters are taken care of.

Then there should be no reason to get married, religious or otherwise.

I love how you claim that you will meet specific standards that you willingly adhere to due to religious reasons, but gay people should be satisfied with just legalities.

the matter can be very simple, just like anybody in love, a gay couple wants to be able to have a legitimate ceremony in front of family and friends to profess their love in front of witnesses.

And nobody who wants to do this should have to settle for pseudo allowances because certain religious institutions, not their religious institutions, are threatened by it.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 


Why can't you 'star' this post?
One thing I like about ATS is the freedom of speech; what's up?


He's been banned (and rightly so). Broke the T&C rules too many times.



LOL... another one bites the dust!

He did not last long did he?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 


Why can't you 'star' this post?
One thing I like about ATS is the freedom of speech; what's up?


He's been banned (and rightly so). Broke the T&C rules too many times.


Thanks for telling me





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join