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)