Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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