Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Certain religions that have beliefs in things like child marriages, corporal punishment of wives, honor killing, human sacrifice etc. we generally don't allow because a) the inability of a child to consent legally into a contract b) corporal punishment, honor killing, violence etc. obviously infringe on the person who is being beaten, killed. There are certain things we do not allow however most of these cases it is because it infringes on the rights of another person (i.e. their right not to be victim of bodily harm, rape, murder, etc.) ... we generally consider someone's right not to be murdered, raped, married of as property to trump that of another person's "freedom of religion". In otherwords, you are free to believe and practice what you want, so long as you do not harm or infringe on the freedom of others. Ultimately it is about CONSENT and CHOICE.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I found this article and thought it was cool! Even though these people are Christian this can apply to anyone! I thought to share it in this thread.

ncrenegade.com...

You forgot to mention something.

They have a choice.

Didn't read the article, did you? They didn't ask for State permission, so everyone else has the same choice they had.

Actually yes - - I did read the article.

They had a choice to have a state marriage or not.

Gays do not have that choice.

Originally posted by Iron7
Gay marriage will be the stepping stone to pedophilia and bestiality marriages

If Iron seven is allowed to use the internet freely, pretty soon he is going to be using the internet to organize all sorts of treasonous, nefarious plots to kill off segments of humanity and undermine us all.

You see how that works?

reply to post by meeneecat


I am against harming anyone also, and this falls correctly under a criminal law.

But I am talking about something as simple as a man having more than one wife if he can afford to support both of them. This is a thing in some religions and where this is concerned in this country it is a criminal offense when it can be a good thing to take on another wife instead of putting one wife away if she cannot bear you a child for instance, or supporting a widow or a divorcee by marrying her.

Things like that harm no one.

Also, marital property... in some religions a woman gets a dowery to which she agrees in a religious contract to be her support in case of her husbands death or in case of divorce... but in this country the man may as well not give a dowery or make such a religious contract with his wife since if they do divorce the judge can override that agreement even if both parties agree to it....

There are many things that are not harmful to anyone that the state wishes to intrude upon concerning marriage. Also, most preachers etc will not marry a couple without a permit from the state because should he do so he can find himself in trouble for it in some states.

This is the infringement of the rights of two religious consenting adults. Therefore, where concerns marriage there is no such thing as freedom of religion....

and the further marriage gets re defined the more the state will be stepping into religious institutions and dictating to them what to do or not do concerning marriage.

This was one of my main points in my OP, and something I wanted to understand. Why do people who claim no religion or religious faith, want to hurt something further for others, when what it is they want can be obtained other ways, like fighting for rights instead of fighting for a marriage most of them dont believe in.

but as Neno and others pointed out, religious people are free to leave marriage as a state institution to the atheists, and keep our religious marriages away from any and all aspects of the state, since religious people dont marry for tax breaks, but as a religious obligation.

Originally posted by ThreeNF
Reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Marriage only benefits a certain group of people. They are called divorce lawyers.

Couples should exist for as long as they are happy. If unhappy, move on.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

LOL.....that is really funny....be careful what you wish for our gay friends......I'm in agreement that I don't want the government involved in "marriage" at all......why the heck would anyone want this twisted, sick, criminal government to "validate" your love? No "tax breaks" are worth it...and no "contract" keeps people together without "heart"...♥

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by meeneecat

 

I am against harming anyone also, and this falls correctly under a criminal law.

But I am talking about something as simple as a man having more than one wife if he can afford to support both of them. This is a thing in some religions and where this is concerned in this country it is a criminal offense when it can be a good thing to take on another wife instead of putting one wife away if she cannot bear you a child for instance, or supporting a widow or a divorcee by marrying her.

Things like that harm no one.

I am for allowing for multiple partnered marriages. However, I don't really agree or find your reasoning to be very realistic, for example in this country it would still be considered a violation of the wife's rights to "put her away" (do you mean, like put her in jail?) simply because she can not conceive. In this country if there were irreconcilable differences than both parties would either end the relationship, or maybe choose surrogacy or adoption, I don't think that getting a 2nd wife is necessarily the logical solution to this dilemma. But I am for the rights of people to take more than one spouse if one so chooses, this not only goes for multiple wives, but also multiple husbands. Where is gets sketchy, actually is when religion is entered into the equation, because then a person could be forced into abusive marriages against their will (again, we have a huge problem with incest and child marriages in the fundamental LDS church). Again, I do not agree in forcing or coercing someone to enter into a polygamous relationship against their wishes simply a religious law dictates it. But I think if they want to out of their own free will then that is fine. Again, I think it comes down to consent and choice, for example I am all for people being able to enter into relationships out of things like love and companionship and wanting to start a family. Edit: Heck, I'm also all for people's right to enter into marriage for cynical or practical reasons too! Whether it be health insurance or inheritance, or a weekend in Vegas! Again, as long as there is no force, cohersion consenting adults should be allowed to choose for themselves who to marry.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Also, marital property... in some religions a woman gets a dowery to which she agrees in a religious contract to be her support in case of her husbands death or in case of divorce... but in this country the man may as well not give a dowery or make such a religious contract with his wife since if they do divorce the judge can override that agreement even if both parties agree to it....

I am not a lawyer, so perhaps you will have to provide a link with some evidence of the above example. I do know however that dowry is not illegal in this country, and arranged marriages still happen as well. From what I do know of my business law classes is that this would probably fall under contract law. People enter into marriage contracts all the time, some concerning property, some probably have conditions and such. I do know however a judge can negate a contract if he feels that one of the parties involved was coerced into said contract, was incapacitated at the time of entering into the contract, or the contract was fraudulently created....but this goes for most contracts in general, not just marriage arrangements. Again, you will have to provide some more information on this as I am not a legal expert.

Originally posted by OpinionatedBThere are many things that are not harmful to anyone that the state wishes to intrude upon concerning marriage.

Specifically which things do you mean. I do know things like anti-miscegenation laws, anti-sodomy laws have since been found unconstitutional.

CONT.

Originally posted by OpinionatedBAlso, most preachers etc will not marry a couple without a permit from the state because should he do so he can find himself in trouble for it in some states.

Again, I am not a lawyer. Can you provide links or evidence of states fining or punishing priests for holding a marriage ceremony without seeing the certificate. When my sister was married, the priest did not require a license, and she and her husband didn't actually get around to getting one from the clerk until weeks after they got back from honeymoon (this is Catholic church, btw) but again, I'm not a legal expert so I would need to see evidence of how states punish?/fine?/jail? priests for marrying without seeing the state license...do you have any links?

Originally posted by OpinionatedBThis is the infringement of the rights of two religious consenting adults. Therefore, where concerns marriage there is no such thing as freedom of religion....

I'm actually not seeing very much evidence from the points you brought up. Except for maybe the multiple partner marriage thing, however again, the way I see it is if people want to enter into this type of relationship out of freewill (i.e. love, companionship, desire to start a family, etc.) then they should be able to consent to do so. Where I disagree is that I am against religious law being able to force women (and underage girls) into this type of relationship against their will. Again, for me it is out of consent and choice...and again it also comes back to contract law, any person(s) being forced into a contract against their will risks having that contract invalidated later on by a judge because legally it would be considered fraudulent (this is true of any legal contract). Again, legal marriage is a form of contract entered into by two parties/consenting adults.

Originally posted by OpinionatedBand the further marriage gets re defined the more the state will be stepping into religious institutions and dictating to them what to do or not do concerning marriage.

This is a form of "slippery slope" argument / "red herring". Societies have redefined marriage many many times before and will continue to do so. See Annee's link "The History of Marriage". This is not a reason to discriminate against people.

Originally posted by OpinionatedBThis was one of my main points in my OP, and something I wanted to understand. Why do people who claim no religion or religious faith, want to hurt something further for others, when what it is they want can be obtained other ways, like fighting for rights instead of fighting for a marriage most of them dont believe in. state will be stepping into religious institutions and dictating to them what to do or not do concerning marriage.

This has been asked ad nauseum. How do gays getting married "hurt" yours or others religious freedoms. What rights are violated by gays being allowed to married (answer: none). It has already been explained ad nauseum as well, that gays cannot get access to the same 1000+ rights and benefits that hetero couples currently enjoy without being allowed to obtain a marriage license...there is no other way unless we just eliminate Legal marriage altogether (i.e. the state is not allowed to legally recognize anyone as married) Again, you need to understand he concept of equal protection here. Either the state has to grant Legal Marriage to everyone, or it has to do away with marriage for everyone. The government is not allowed to discriminate.

Originally posted by OpinionatedBbut as Neno and others pointed out, religious people are free to leave marriage as a state institution to the atheists, and keep our religious marriages away from any and all aspects of the state, since religious people dont marry for tax breaks, but as a religious obligation.

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

Yes, you are certainly free to not get a marriage license. You are free to turn down the benefits, like taxes, health insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, adoption, etc. You are more than free to do so and get married per your religious belief. The point is gay people are not allowed this same choice. They don't want "church marriage" they want LEGAL marriage under the law. Nothing to do with yours or any one else's religion. EXPLAINED AD NAUSEUM and I whole heatedly believe that you do not come to this "confusion" honestly, but as been pointed out only see the issue in black and white, as in your beliefs seem to trump the constitutional rights of others, so much so that you honestly believe certain people should be legally discriminated against. Am I right? Or have you changed your mind and agree the gov't should start issuing gay people marriage licensees forthwith. Maybe you will surprise me yet. (not holding by breath though)

reply to post by meeneecat


I find it absolutely humourous that you use the same types of arguments against freedom of religion within marriage that some religious people do against homosexual marriage.

you see where this gets you? with your own words shoved back in your face. (I can copy paste them if you like!)

If marriage is between consenting adults then why should the state be able to limit it to a certain number of people? Or set the property division upon a divorce when there is a signed contract between the man and the woman concerning property division?

I dont have to prove anything.... I am not here to argue with you.... I wanted to know a thing and I found out a long time ago... you seem to have stepped in and wanted to fight for absolutely no good reason.,

you want a state sanctioned marriage? Good, have one....(had you actually read the thread and even Nenos recent posts you would know my stance on gay marriage!)

I want a religious marriage... so I will not have anything to do with the state in mine! I am not a whore and dont marry for state money, so tax breaks mean nothing to me.

PS If you put your wife away you divorce her.

I am against gay marriage, but the whole case is a meaningless distraction issue.

reply to post by meeneecat

Geez. it looks like you're going to try to wear me down with tedium. I can promise you that's not going to happen, I hope you have padded walls so it doesn't hurt as bad when you bang your head against them.

I'll try to truncate this a bit, and just hit the high points.

Originally posted by meeneecat

Arguments against gay marriage by anti-gay-marriage activists are based in their religious belief.

I wouldn't know. I'm not an "activist" either way. i don't really care about it that much, and activists on either side annoy me. I don't understand why either side gives a rat's ass about the other, or what they think or do. that's actually what drags me into these debates - I'm here to give them a different perspective to ease their worried minds and hopefully assist them in getting "active" in the business of living rather than bitching. I don't understand why any one, Christian or gay, would stoop to the level of begging government to do what they know they need to do. Just do it.

However, religious law does not dictate state or federal law because: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion".

And what do you know - to this very day, we STILL have no state-established religion. it seems to have worked!

Those who are not part of this religious group do not have to follow bible law, nor can they be compelled to do so. The two are separate.

I can name you several religions that don't follow "bible law". that seems to be the bias against Christians rearing it's ugly head again.

I can probably guess how you, the OP and others (myself included) would feel if a Muslim group started pushing for a federal law requiring all women, whether these women are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist etc. to wear headscarfs in public (so this is how people feel when Christians do the same thing with their religious beliefs)...Religious belief should never form the basis of state/federal laws.

Had to go there, didn't you? You may be treading on thin ice with that analogy, but I think I'll just mention that and sit back and watch, to see what happens.

First of all, I never said she was a Christian so don't go putting words in my mouth.

then why the constant attempts to apply "bible law" to her? just a dig at Christians in general, and she was a convenient, if misapplicable, target?

What is relevant is that in the U.S. it is mostly CHRISTIANS, especially fundamentalist Christians, that are advocating against equal rights (among other contentious issues) based on their religious beliefs (and in many states have passed discriminatory laws). So you see, a lot of people get rightfully annoyed when you have a certain religious group trying to compel people of different religions and people of no religion to follow their belief system. The reason I and others keep mentioning Christians, is because in this country it IS fundamental CHRISTIANS who are advocating for state and federal laws based on their religious doctrine...and I hope I don't have to explain here as to why this is wrong / unconstitutional.

So, if you're that dead set against them, do you argue to beg their permission to do something? Just do it, and ignore them! I did, and it seems to be working out just fine.

Here you are wrong. Gay people are not pushing to get married in church. What gay person would want to be part of an organization that hates and discriminates against them? Go back and read the dozens upon dozens of times this has already been said.

You may have need of some re-reading as well. I would suggest all the posts discussing the "gay christian" churches, and the gay church weddings allowed by some churches, etc. I suppose we could include the increasing number of churches admitting gay clergy, but why go so far afield. they're there, if you bother to look for them, and as far as I'm concerned they can run their religion any old way they like. it's nothing to me. I don't have to associate with it if I don't like it, any more than gay people do.

Gay people want what everyone else has. The ability to obtain a state marriage license and the 1000+ benefits and rights that come with it.

And they should have it under the law. Misery loves company, so I really don't understand why they are barred from it. having been involved in a state licensed marriage at some point or another, however, I am completely mystified at these "benefits" you speak of. I never saw them, much less "thousands" of them.
CONT'D

reply to post by meeneecat

Originally posted by meeneecat
Hey Sparky, a marriage ceremony held in your church, and a marriage license issued by the state are two different matters entirely. Do you understand this? Really? Because it's been repeated out about a million bazillion times already. The subject is LEGAL marriage, the marriage license issued by the state is what gay people want. This has nothing to do with "church" or "god" or marriage as defined by priests. One does not need to have a marriage ceremony in a church in order to get married, ask the millions of Americans who are married and did not get married in a church, or by a priest or as part of anything having to do with religion.

This is really a response to my contention that no one has shown any proof of marriage predating religion? Really? i'm not seeing the evidence there, either, other than an attempt to change the discussion back to legal issues, rather than religious ones, after hammering on about religion for your last umpty-zillion posts.

State sanctioned marriages most certainly DO NOT predate religion. I can establish that unequivocally. State governments started around 5500 years ago, but evidence for religion goes back at least 250,000 years. Might not be your beloved Christianity, but it's religion all the same.

Really? Do you find it that far fetched that humanity is incapable, and nay, has made many advancements in all areas of life, science, arts, etc. without the aid of religion?

Not sure how you got any of that out of what i wrote.

Did you read the link that Annee posted?

Yes. Still found no evidence in it for marriage predating religion, but it was a pretty good read all the same. that author appeared to be confusing "religion" with "Christianity" as well.

Family structures, which later became the basis for what societies consider "marriage" existed long before "religion".

A "basis" for something is not the thing itself. Family structures exist among all sorts of animals as well, but I know of no species other than humans who don a tux and carry it to the extent of a ceremony. In other words, i know of no species other than humans who formalize it to the extent of a "marriage".

It also says that the church did not start getting involved in marriage until the 12th century, and did not require that ceremonies be performed in a church by a priest until the "Council of Trent" in the 1500's.

That's nice. So "the church" is the only religion going, in your opinion?

I would suggest actually reading up on some of this material because repeating the same thing over and over again will not make it any more true or correct.

You just wrote that. Did you read it yourself, as you wrote it? It's true, by the way - as is the converse, that it will not make it any LESS true or correct.

Saying that marriage was invented by religion does not make it true.

Nor does that statement make it false.

Actually, I'm wondering why you and others still seem to be so mis informed about the history of both marriage and religion...again, this has been explain ad nauseum throughout this thread.

I dunno. Educate me. See what you can come up with that is irrefutable. So far, not much. Makes me wonder as to which of is is TRULY the "uninformed" one in those matters.

So then, if you agree with me that no one group of people can claim a monopoly on marriage. Then what exactly is your beef with gays getting married?

My beef is biological, not religious. Not that it really matters in the long run - it's not a legal objection, either, so it's moot.

CONT'D

reply to post by meeneecat

Originally posted by meeneecat
That's just plain incorrect. It's fine if you don't want to get a state marriage license. It's fine if you don't want the benefits and rights that come with this certificate...you don't need anyone's permission to not get a marriage license. That's your choice to make of course.

How is it incorrect to assert that my word will bind me tighter than any legal document ever written? you don't know me at all, yet think you can make that determination about me?

In fact that "slab of paper" DOES say that two people are LEGALLY married in the eyes of the law.

Still doesn't make it a marriage - it only makes it a legal obligation. apparently one that requires contracts to enforce, since the participants are just not really all that into it to live up to their own commitments. They evidently need the State to enforce it for them.

I did not see in the original post where she says she supports gay marriage. She said she was for "equal rights" but then goes on to imply that gays should not be allowed to marry. (and actually, that would mean she is not really for equal rights).

Wanting to understand why they would WANT to get married is not the same as implying they should be DENIED marriage. You're reading your own biases into it.

I think your hatred of Polar Bears has blinded you to any attempts to win friendship with Polar Bears, even among non-Polar Bears.

I don't hate polar bears. They are very tasty.

And why do you hate peanut butter so much and why can't you stop sucking your moms toes? Oh wait, did you say you were a member of the mom-toe-sucking church? Because I just kinda assumed that.

Lets just sit back and see how far personal attacks that are entirely off topic and unfounded will get you, shall we? I'll make some popcorn. This ought to get good.

[this thread should come with a warning for head injury, via "head meet wall" - pound. pound. pound." ... and sorry for long posts...some of this was just so frustrating I just had to respond]

Be a man. Pad your cell and stop whining about it.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by meeneecat

 

I find it absolutely humourous that you use the same types of arguments against freedom of religion within marriage that some religious people do against homosexual marriage.

you see where this gets you? with your own words shoved back in your face. (I can copy paste them if you like!)

If marriage is between consenting adults then why should the state be able to limit it to a certain number of people? Or set the property division upon a divorce when there is a signed contract between the man and the woman concerning property division?

I dont have to prove anything.... I am not here to argue with you.... I wanted to know a thing and I found out a long time ago... you seem to have stepped in and wanted to fight for absolutely no good reason.,

you want a state sanctioned marriage? Good, have one....

I want a religious marriage... so I will not have anything to do with the state in mine! I am not a whore and dont marry for state money, so tax breaks mean nothing to me.

PS If you put your wife away you divorce her.

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

Yea, why don't you quote me, because I think you are misconstruing what I said then because your apparent interpretation is nothing like what I said. Did I ever say I was against multiple partner (2+) marriages (except in cases of force) Do you have an issue with reading comprehension. It's like you popped a nut or something:

You: Well then why don't you believe people should be able to have more than one wife if they want.
Me: Yes, so long as no force or child marriage is involved people should be allowed to consent to be in a poly amorous relationship
You: HA HA! I got you! See How do you like that, apparently you are against it HAHA, see I can just throw your own words back in your face.
Me: Okay, whatever, you do that.
------
You: if two people enter into a marriage contract then a judge should not be able to invalidate it.
Me: as long as a contract is not entered into fraudulently or coercivley then the contract cannot be invalidated by a judge, this is how contract law work
You: HA HA see, eat your words! apparently you think the state can dictate people's marriage agreements! HA! See what that gets you, arguing against religious freedom and using the same logic that you accuse religious people of using.
Me: yep. you got me. I stand no change against that sharp brain and logic of yours, now do I?
You: WHORE! I"M NO WHORE. WHORE! WHORE! GOV'T WHORE. I"M BETTER THAN YOU, I AINT TAKIN" NONE OF YOUR GOV"T WHORE BENEFITS!

*the audible sound of about 100 screws just hit the floor*

Yea. I'm done with this. Stick to your tunnel vision and black and white world...and especially keep that logic to yourself...I certainly don't want to catch whatever *that* is. For sure, I'll be laughing when I see you ranting on the porch with the crazy racist koots and all the other holdouts from "back in the day.

reply to post by nenothtu


lol... i wont mention it... no need



I am sick of people who cant read though! I vote we both throw in the towel and let these people deride me for wanting to understand something all by themselves.

they are going to hate me regardless, that much is obvious

I promise never again to ask anyone why I should vote for something they want! It seems you get all kinds of hated on for asking to understand!

Next time I will just ask you!

reply to post by meeneecat

Originally posted by meeneecat

It has already been explained ad nauseum as well, that gays cannot get access to the same 1000+ rights and benefits that hetero couples currently enjoy without being allowed to obtain a marriage license...

You keep mentioning these "1000's of rights and benefits". What are they? You don't have to name them in their multiplicity of thousands - just a few that can ONLY be obtained through a legal marriage contract will suffice. Having been subjected to these contracts in my wicked and misspent youth, I fail to understand what they are. I never found them in roughly 18 years total of playing the contracts.

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by Iron7
Gay marriage will be the stepping stone to pedophilia and bestiality marriages

If Iron seven is allowed to use the internet freely, pretty soon he is going to be using the internet to organize all sorts of treasonous, nefarious plots to kill off segments of humanity and undermine us all.

You see how that works?

Incorrect.

You are implying my argument is a slippery slope, when in reality it is human nature to demand a mile when given an inch.

Take slavery for example. Slavery banned, then slaves allowed to vote, then affirmative action, then a black President. Not that that is a bad thing but it is an example.

reply to post by nenothtu


For the record, anyone that says stuff like "be a man" and then goes around caring a little too much about the private bedrooms of others, I have to wonder about them.

It's pointless trying to talk sense with blind prejudice.


History my friend. You're on the wrong side of it. Wouldn't want to be ya.

reply to post by meeneecat


you consider it blind prejudice because he is not gay? what blind prejudice anyway? He is voting for gay marriage, he is the biggest reason I would too...

so I am curious where you are getting all this blind prejudice from?

reply to post by nenothtu


Seriously I am so sorry I ever wanted to know or ask... I will never do this again.

If I never speak to another gay person again I think it will be too soon after all this mess!

Originally posted by Iron7


Take slavery for example. Slavery banned, then slaves allowed to vote, then affirmative action, then a black President. Not that that is a bad thing but it is an example.

Seriously? THAT'S your example? Good going there! You people really will provide scientists with decades of fascinating psychological study once gay marriage is legalized. Fascinating how you guys think. [At least you got that I was referring to your slippery slope fallacy there...so called a fallacy for a reason]

This thread is getting more and more ridiculous by the moment. ...

/leaving this thread for good this time.