Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

page: 61
19
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Yet your missing the point since we are not sitting here discussing equal rights! I too agree we should all have equal rights...

But I believe in the separation of Church and State. This means the state has no business telling me I have to pay them in order to engage in a religious institution like marriage, or tell religious leaders that they have no choice but to break their religious laws concerning who they marry etc.

I believe all men have a right to life, if they cant eat otherwise they should be able to hunt at no charge!

I believe if I own a piece of land the government should not be able to make me pay them to make improvements upon that piece of land I own.

This has nothing to do with equal rights... and everything to do with freedom from big governments intrusion upon individual liberties.
edit on 4-9-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

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)

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



Wow! Really?!

Firstly, do you not understand that not everyone follows your religion? (really, I wonder this sometimes, you know atheists and agnostics and those unaffiliated/nonpracticing get married) Do you know that the state does not define marriage as your "god" or religion does? (This is pretty basic actually) And also that you cannot compel other people who do not share your religious beliefs to follow your religious law, whatever that may be.

Secondly, call it what you want, but "state" marriage has nothing to do with god or religion or your beliefs. It is a contract between two people allowing for certain benefits and rights under the law (constitutional law, i.e. the actual law we follow in this country, different from "bible law"). Because we have a constitution that enshrines equal rights, then the law needs to apply to everyone equally. Any two adults are allowed to enter into contracts. "state" marriage is a contract. So whether it be an employment contract, a contract between patient / doctor, or a marriage contract, the government can not be allowed to discriminate against those who want to enter into a contractual relationship with another person (or so says the constitution). If you want to adhere toward a certain belief and define marriage in a certain way, that's your business to do so, but as for the state marriage license and the 1000 plus benefits that come with it, that should be up to two consenting adults involved. This contract, a state marriage license, has nothing to do with "god", or jesus or religion.


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
The law does not say unless I personally think its ok, it says no, plain as day.


What is plain as day, is that you seem to not understand the difference between your religious practice, what you call "the law" (which is your religion), and the actual law, as in local, state, federal, constitution, etc. There is no "bible law" or "koran law" or any other religious law in this country because we are a representative democracy, not a theocracy. (that's pretty basic civics 101, as well)

It's actually quite simple if you think about it.

Gay marriage will be law sooner or later, those opposing it will be on the wrong side of history along with the racists and flat eathers (those who were for the anti miscegenation laws way back when, had many of the same arguments as the anti-gay marriage people do today). Good company I suppose.

Now I'll go read some of those other comments I missed in this thread hopefully without the need to bang my head on the keyboard.
edit on 4-9-2012 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by meeneecat
 


Kinda missed the point there didn't you, Sparky? Laws that apply to her are just that, which she specified. They may not apply to you, so relax.

The law of the land is what it is, and applies to all those under it. Since most places currently bar gay marriage, that's what we currently follow - not some nebulous ans speculative "future" law.

So her question is, if she isn't supposed to break her law, why should others be allowed to break theirs?

Change it instead, if you feel so strongly that you have to deliberately misconstrue.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

But I believe in the separation of Church and State.


You can get married in your church any time you want. In my experience though - - - I bet they'd expect a "donation" for services.

If you want a Legal Government Marriage - - that's a different matter.

Our forefathers created the Legal Government Marriage - - - to prevent interracial marriage. Our forefathers are the ones who created this Legal Contract called Marriage License. Since it is a Legal Government Contract - - - and we are a secular government - - there is no religion in Legal Government Marriage. And since it is a Legal Government contract - - it can not be exclusive to only some people.

As things do - - the Legal Marriage License evolved allowing privileges - tax breaks - etc - - - - not afforded by any other means. These privileges etc - - - can not be denied to a minority group just because they are born with same sex orientation.

If you want to blame anyone for taking Marriage out of the church - - - blame the racist forefathers for making Marriage a Legal Government contract.

Equal Rights - - - means Equal as things are right now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguing whether or not there should be a Legal Government Marriage license - - - is a completely different subject.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


When the law itself is unjust, I ignore it. When the law itself takes liberties not accorded to it, I ignore it. No man has the right to tell me what to eat, when, or how to get it so long as I'm not stealing it from the possession of another who exerted themselves to get it.

Neither does any government body.

I personally would find it hilarious if everyone in Kansas (all 2,871,238 of them) suddenly decided to hunt their own grub. I would pop popcorn for THAT show! Same for any other state. There are just scads of people out there entirely unsuited to that sort of self-support, and I'd pay good money to watch them try!

Likewise, no man or governing body has the right to tell me who, when, or how to marry. You can beg their permission all you like - I'm not going to.


edit on 2012/9/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't think marriage should ever have been part of the church. All that does is allow the church to control how you can express your love, which inevitably turns into restricting yet another one of our human freedoms.

Because "God" clearly hates any kind of human behavior. Pretty odd, considering he made us in his image, supposedly. I wonder how often he looks in the mirror and thinks, "Is this the day they find out? Is this the day they realize how bad I f***ed up?"

That's why we haven't heard from him in so long. He's the drunkard father that's too ashamed to show his face, so he relies on his mystique to get things done because we're conveniently too stupid to pull the curtain back.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Our forefathers created the Legal Government Marriage - - - to prevent interracial marriage. Our forefathers are the ones who created this Legal Contract called Marriage License. Since it is a Legal Government Contract - - - and we are a secular government - - there is no religion in Legal Government Marriage. And since it is a Legal Government contract - - it can not be exclusive to only some people.


In that, you are incorrect. The instant you seek government sanction for any activity, you also accept government restrictions on it. If they restrict who is allowed to enter one of their contracts, that is the government's right as the issuing body.

If you don't like that, the remedy is simple - just don't ask government permission, which can always be denied. If you don't ask, they can't tell you "NO!"



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by meeneecat
 


Kinda missed the point there didn't you, Sparky? Laws that apply to her are just that, which she specified. They may not apply to you, so relax.

The law of the land is what it is, and applies to all those under it. Since most places currently bar gay marriage, that's what we currently follow - not some nebulous ans speculative "future" law.

So her question is, if she isn't supposed to break her law, why should others be allowed to break theirs?

Change it instead, if you feel so strongly that you have to deliberately misconstrue.



No misconstruing, "Sparky"


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)


I thought I was pretty clear:

She uses the word "law", which she seems to use interchangeably with "the actual law" (constitution, courts, etc.), and then clearly asks "why do gay people want to get married if God says it is wrong" which implies that she doesn't seem to understand that this "bible law" do not apply to everyone, nor does everyone use the term "marriage" as defined by her particular religion. Gay people do not give a hoot about "religious marriage", they are demanding equal rights and benefits that come from the marriage contract issued by the states. Federal/State law, as it is supposed to apply to everyone equally, refers to a marriage CONTRACT (as in an agreement of two consenting adults), as issued by the various county clerks all throughout this country, this contract has nothing to do with religion or the "bible law" which she subscribes to and seems to confuse the two. She's fine to believe in whatever religion she wants to, but she does not get to compel others to follow her beliefs or deny others rights and freedoms because of her religious beliefs. That seems pretty clear, Sparky.

This "confusion" that the OP has, many people have tried to spell it out and explain over and over. But it seems rather she just refuses to look at things from any other perspective than her initial tunnel vision perspective. Rather than a real desire to understand and broaden her perspective, it seems she is just looking to entrench herself further in her narrow views. People have explained over and over:
A)"marriage" predates religion,
B) no one religion or group can "claim" marriage as "their institution", either everyone or no one should be able to marry. the idea is equal protection, equal rights
C) "marriage" licenses as provided by the state have no basis in religious doctrine but rather form the basis of a combination or rights/benefits granted through a contract, those who choose to do so can opt to add on a church or religious component, have a marriage ceremony in a church, but again this is not a requirement to receive a marriage license from the state
D) no rights of religious people will be altered, changed, or denied if gays are allowed to marry,
E) the sky has not fallen in MA, Canada, or any of the other places that allow gay marriage.

But even after these were explained numerous times, and even after the OP admitted that none of her rights would be changed/denied by allowing gay people to marry, she and others are still repeating the same things over and over.

And actually we have a constitution, and equal protection. Some states have gone as far as to enshrine discrimination in their laws by passing anti-gay laws, other states have not. Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time, and immoral laws are destined to be changed/repealed (slavery, jim crow, segregation, women's voting rights, etc.). Just because a certain state passes a law does not mean that this law is necessarily just or fair. All throughout history hateful / bigoted majorities have used government and laws to oppress minorities and certain people who are different or that they do not agree with. But the idea of "equality" does not mean that the majority gets to decide on the rights of a minority. This is the great thing about this country, is that the constitution was novel in that it gave equal rights to everyone regardless of differences. Obviously this is still a concept that many people still have trouble with as they let their prejudices color their beliefs. Thankfully though, equality and fairness usually win out and people smarten up in the end. To most in this country it is pretty obvious where history will go with this one. Like I said the anti-gay folk are on the wrong side of history, just like the sexists, the slave owners, the flat earthers. Gay marriage will be legalized eventually and all those screaming about it can join the holdouts from the civil rights era, that crazy old racist koot ranting on his porch.
edit on 5-9-2012 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Likewise, no man or governing body has the right to tell me who, when, or how to marry. You can beg their permission all you like - I'm not going to.



No one is restricting you from marrying. You can marry who ever you want - - any time you want - - any where you want.

No one is forcing you to have a Legal Marriage contract - - obtained only through the government. It is your choice.

Unfortunately at this time - - a minority group does not have that choice - - and the main argument against it is Religious based - - - which is not acceptable.

As far as states rights. The right of denying a minority are and were put in place explicitly for discrimination purposes - - and will be over ridden by Federal Government.










edit on 5-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

In that, you are incorrect. The instant you seek government sanction for any activity, you also accept government restrictions on it. If they restrict who is allowed to enter one of their contracts, that is the government's right as the issuing body.

If you don't like that, the remedy is simple - just don't ask government permission, which can always be denied. If you don't ask, they can't tell you "NO!"



So far the main argument against gays having Legal Marriage has been religious. It will not stand up.

Gays have always had their own "marriage" ceremonies. That is not the issue.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee
 


I don't think marriage should ever have been part of the church. All that does is allow the church to control how you can express your love, which inevitably turns into restricting yet another one of our human freedoms.

Because "God" clearly hates any kind of human behavior. Pretty odd, considering he made us in his image, supposedly. I wonder how often he looks in the mirror and thinks, "Is this the day they find out? Is this the day they realize how bad I f***ed up?"

That's why we haven't heard from him in so long. He's the drunkard father that's too ashamed to show his face, so he relies on his mystique to get things done because we're conveniently too stupid to pull the curtain back.


If one believes in a god - - - they can separate god from church. Church and religion are both man made institutions.

The church has denied marriage to many throughout history for a variety of reasons. Just as they have denied divorce.

Legal Marriage via government contract has nothing to do with god or church. And using god to argue it - - is unacceptable.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat
I thought I was pretty clear:


It is. That's why it's all the more mystifying that you seem to be unable to grasp it, simple concept though it is.



She uses the word "law", which she seems to use interchangeably with "the actual law" (constitution, courts, etc.),


You seem to be confusing the separation between church and state, and apparently believe there is some sort of equity between religious law and secular law. Religious law is no less binding on those who accept it than secular law is upon those who accept that. Just because YOU don't fall under it doesn't make it any less "real", any more than Argentinian law is invalidated because I don't fall under Argentinian law. laws, of any kind, apply to those who fall under that law, and there are all sorts of law.



and then clearly asks "why do gay people want to get married if God says it is wrong" which implies that she doesn't seem to understand that this "bible law" do not apply to everyone, nor does everyone use the term "marriage" as defined by her particular religion.


"Bible law" doesn't apply to her, either. She's not a Christian. Just because you happen to have a hard on for Christians, don't assume everyone who disagrees with you IS one.



Gay people do not give a hoot about "religious marriage", they are demanding equal rights and benefits that come from the marriage contract issued by the states. Federal/State law, as it is supposed to apply to everyone equally, refers to a marriage CONTRACT (as in an agreement of two consenting adults), as issued by the various county clerks all throughout this country, this contract has nothing to do with religion or the "bible law" which she subscribes to and seems to confuse the two. She's fine to believe in whatever religion she wants to, but she does not get to compel others to follow her beliefs or deny others rights and freedoms because of her religious beliefs. That seems pretty clear, Sparky.


If they don't "give a hoot about religious marriage", then why do so many push for a church marriage? Seems to me a JP ought to be just as good for the sort of power over one another they appear to want to wield under the secular law. That itself is an alien concept to me - I have no need to have that sort of legal power over another... but to each his own. I don't need the State to enforce any contract I make - my word is good enough, and if it isn't then no amount of State pressure will change that.

Again, OpinionatedB DOES NOT subscribe to "Bible Law" - you have no idea how well I know that! It's not SHE who is confused between the two here, it is YOU. Nor is she attempting to deny any one any thing. Wanting to understand the WHY of it is not equitable with a denial of rights. You would think gay people would welcome attempts to understand their thoughts, rather than get their back hair all up over it. She's not compelling any one to do or not do any thing by asking a question and trying to understand.



A)"marriage" predates religion,


I've seen that claim made here, but nary a shred of evidence to support it. So you tell ME, Sparky, what prompted the inception of a marriage ceremony if it wasn't some sort of religion? Why did we stop just dragging them back to the cave by their hair and forcing them to shack up with us without benefit of the ceremony? How did ceremonies start at all if not from some sort of religious thought?



B) no one religion or group can "claim" marriage as "their institution", either everyone or no one should be able to marry. the idea is equal protection, equal rights


And none do. they claim THEIR ceremonies and forms, but not the institution in general. It would be ludicrous to do so - there are too many religions around for such a thing to make any sense. You ARE aware that there are more religions than Christianity, right? They've ALL got their own traditions and forms in the matter.



C) "marriage" licenses as provided by the state have no basis in religious doctrine but rather form the basis of a combination or rights/benefits granted through a contract, those who choose to do so can opt to add on a church or religious component, have a marriage ceremony in a church, but again this is not a requirement to receive a marriage license from the state


A slab of paper does not a marriage make. If you doubt that, I direct your attention to current divorce statistics. that is precisely why a State license has no place at all in my own marriage. My word in the matter carries more weight than any number of State decrees, and I deny THEM the "right" to grant me permission - it's not their permission to grant.



D) no rights of religious people will be altered, changed, or denied if gays are allowed to marry,


That remains to be seen, since it has not yet been done, but for now I'll agree with you on that - tentatively.



E) the sky has not fallen in MA, Canada, or any of the other places that allow gay marriage.


Not sure what sort of point you're trying to make there.
The sky has not fallen because of the Rwanda genocide, either, and I don't think that was a good thing at all. Just because something happens somewhere and the entire Earth doesn't implode doesn't make it a GOOD thing!



But even after these were explained numerous times, and even after the OP admitted that none of her rights would be changed/denied by allowing gay people to marry, she and others are still repeating the same things over and over.


The OP SUPPORTS gay marriage - secularly. She is looking for a reason WHY she should support it. it's always a good thing to know why you believe what you believe - it helps you explain it to others. Yet here you are trying to tell her she should believe no such thing, instead of trying to explain good reasons to believe it. I think your hatred of Christians has blinded you to any attempts to win friends and influence people, even among non-Christians. You're not going to make much headway like that, but have at it. I'll enjoy watching you blunder along in your attempts. I'm always open for entertainment.



And actually we have a constitution, and equal protection. Some states have gone as far as to enshrine discrimination in their laws by passing anti-gay laws, other states have not. Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time, and immoral laws are destined to be changed/repealed (slavery, jim crow, segregation, women's voting rights, etc.). Just because a certain state passes a law does not mean that this law is necessarily just or fair. All throughout history hateful / bigoted majorities have used government and laws to oppress minorities and certain people who are different or that they do not agree with. But the idea of "equality" does not mean that the majority gets to decide on the rights of a minority. This is the great thing about this country, is that the constitution was novel in that it gave equal rights to everyone regardless of differences. Obviously this is still a concept that many people still have trouble with as they let their prejudices color their beliefs. Thankfully though, equality and fairness usually win out and people smarten up in the end. To most in this country it is pretty obvious where history will go with this one. Like I said the anti-gay folk are on the wrong side of history, just like the sexists, the slave owners, the flat earthers. Gay marriage will be legalized eventually and all those screaming about it can join the holdouts from the civil rights era, that crazy old racist koot ranting on his porch.


So get out there and change the laws you don't like, instead of sitting around bitching about religious folks on a forum. I know it's harder for you to do, but the rewards are far greater. No pain, no gain. In order to promote tolerance for YOUR cause, you have to first display tolerance for others. Go show them how that works.

Glad I could get under your skin with a simple word, Sparky. It made my day.


edit on 2012/9/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
The Real History of Marriage.

I've read a lot of different "histories of marriage". This particular site seems to include/compile most of the info/histories I've read from various sites. Which is why I use this particular site.

So - don't comeback with "its just a blog" or "its new age" or any other lame excuse.

onespiritproject.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu

Likewise, no man or governing body has the right to tell me who, when, or how to marry. You can beg their permission all you like - I'm not going to.



No one is restricting you from marrying. You can marry who ever you want - - any time you want - - any where you want.


You're absolutely right. that much is the same for all of us - gay and straight alike.



No one is forcing you to have a Legal Marriage contract - - obtained only through the government. It is your choice.


No one is forcing gays to have a State marriage Contract, either. The contention is that they should be allowed to have one if they so desire, and I agree with that. they should be allowed the same poisons as the rest if they want to drink it. If they want a State license, they should have one. if they want a religious license, they'll have to take that up with their gods. No one should be forced either way to do anything at all against their own conscience.

If gays are too weak to keep their own promises, then by all means get the State to force them to keep them.



Unfortunately at this time - - a minority group does not have that choice - - and the main argument against it is Religious based - - - which is not acceptable.


Tactical error to make a religion based argument in a secular issue, but let 'em have at it. I have objections to gay marriage myself, so I just won't enter one. That is the extent of my rights in the matter. My objections are neither religion based nor law based, and so I think the secular law ought to allow it, and religions handle the matter according to their own dictates.



As far as states rights. The right of denying a minority are and were put in place explicitly for discrimination purposes - - and will be over ridden by Federal Government.


We're not really going to get into the States Rights vs Federal Rights debate here, are we? if we are, you'd better be real well versed in Constitutional Law.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu

In that, you are incorrect. The instant you seek government sanction for any activity, you also accept government restrictions on it. If they restrict who is allowed to enter one of their contracts, that is the government's right as the issuing body.

If you don't like that, the remedy is simple - just don't ask government permission, which can always be denied. If you don't ask, they can't tell you "NO!"



So far the main argument against gays having Legal Marriage has been religious. It will not stand up.

Gays have always had their own "marriage" ceremonies. That is not the issue.



No, it's not. The root issue is their desire to have legal power over another human being. I'm all for it, if that sort of thing is what floats their boat. Not my problem if they agree to give that power over themselves to another. That's their own purgatory to live out.

As long as I don't have to, I'm good with it.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Annee

So far the main argument against gays having Legal Marriage has been religious. It will not stand up.

Gays have always had their own "marriage" ceremonies. That is not the issue.



No, it's not.


Yes - religion is the main argument against gays having Legal Marriage.

Religious based groups spend millions of dollars to prevent gays from having the government contract Legal Marriage.



The root issue is their desire to have legal power over another human being.


Who is "their"? You mean government?

That is your issue. But then I'm assuming you are hetero - - and have the choice.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The Real History of Marriage.

I've read a lot of different "histories of marriage". This particular site seems to include/compile most of the info/histories I've read from various sites. Which is why I use this particular site.

So - don't comeback with "its just a blog" or "its new age" or any other lame excuse.

onespiritproject.com...


I read it. the woman seems to be laboring under the illusion that "Legal marriages" or "Civil Unions" are the only form of marriage that exists, or ever has. Her arguments are probably valid if restricted to legal or civil marriage, but probably not if extended to the institution in general.

Some of it is just plain inaccurate - for example, that Indians were denied the right to marriage. Never happened. Maybe they were denied the right to white secular marriages, but they married all the same, under their own laws and customs. no need for the Great White Father to bless it.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
. . . . they should be allowed the same poisons as the rest if they want to drink it.


This is not about your own personal issues. Your personal issue has nothing to do with the Equal Right of Choice.


If gays are too weak to keep their own promises, then by all means get the State to force them to keep them.


It has nothing to do with keeping promises. Or force.



I have objections to gay marriage myself, so I just won't enter one.


So you are saying you are gay?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee



The root issue is their desire to have legal power over another human being.


Who is "their"? You mean government?

That is your issue. But then I'm assuming you are hetero - - and have the choice.



No. "Their" is any of the individuals, gay or not, that feel a need to have a government enforce their marriage for them. They are merely seeking legal power over a spouse that they think may give them a run for their money. Yes, I'm hetero, and I have the choice. being hetero doesn't enter the equation, though. I would still have all the choices I need in the matter, hetero or not.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Annee
The Real History of Marriage.

I've read a lot of different "histories of marriage". This particular site seems to include/compile most of the info/histories I've read from various sites. Which is why I use this particular site.

So - don't comeback with "its just a blog" or "its new age" or any other lame excuse.

onespiritproject.com...


I read it. the woman seems to be laboring under the illusion that "Legal marriages" or "Civil Unions" are the only form of marriage that exists, or ever has.



You seem to be the only one STUCK on the issue of Legal Marriage.

This is not about your personal issue with Legal Marriage. Its about Legal Marriage - - - and having that right.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join