Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I said something via PM to the OP and I think it applies here.

Keeping religion out of government, and government out of religion is the only way for you to protect your rights to religious freedom and my right to not be incumbered by it.

You're right that it should be all civil unions, that religion never should have been recognized as a legal institution when it came to laws and rights provided by contracts with the state.

However, progress, is creating civil unions for same sex couples and THEN they can change their movement and request something else.

But you can't start doing something, work on it for 20 years, pretty much get a thumbs up from everybody involved and then decide it's not good enough.

~Tenth




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I guess I do not understand.

Can you explain your thinking in more detail?


After Edit:

What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.

if this makes sense.

If we are having civil unions recognised as a non religious state affair.... what might religious marriages have to do, or fight for, so that we never loose any of our rights, or risk them?

Honestly the only solution I really see, so that no one risks loosing rights, is simply to exclude any of this from being a government affair.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Originally posted by OpinionatedB
If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk,


How?

If you buy a car and a gay person buys a car, how does that risk your car purchase?
If you get a drivers license and a gay person gets a drivers license, how does that risk your driving ability?

What you're saying about constitutional rights doesn't make sense.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 



What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.


Again your rights aren't being threatened. Recognizing marriages between same sex couples does not invalidate your marriage, or make it less significant, regardless of what it's called.



If we are having civil unions recognised as a non religious state affair.... what might religious marriages have to do, or fight for, so that we never loose any of our rights, or risk them?


That's the thing, you already have all the rights. The system was made to protect your rights and prevent anybody else from getting them, that's why it needs to change and be made so that all consenting adults with civil contracts can have access to those rights.



Honestly the only solution I really see, so that no one risks loosing rights, is simply to exclude any of this from being a government affair.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


That is the ideal situation, but it won't happen, the state makes too much money off marriages. I wish they would revert back to civil unions for all marriages regarding the legal issues and then churches and citizens would be free to do as they please and call it whatever they please.

Defining a legal contract between two or more consenting adults and the state as "marriage" is the actual problem.

~Tenth
edit on 7/26/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


ok....


Thank you again btw, you helped me a lot.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by daynight42
 


I am not here to debate the existence of God, or who or what constitutes God, nor am I pushing any religious belief.

I am trying to understand a concept, as we know it today, in this country, concerning what constitutes religious freedom, and equal rights under the law in regards marriage and/or living together.


No you're not. Your entire opening thread revolves around religion and God and how you only see marriage under those terms. That necessarily makes you debating the existence of God within this context.

The short answer I think is very obvious: Not everyone sees marriage as having anything to do with religion and THAT is what some gay people are fighting for. To you, marriage has everything to do with religion. But for I'd say a great great GREAT number of people, it has nothing to do with churches or religions, even though it does take place at a church.

Concerning religious freedom, there IS religious freedom. There are Christian and Catholic churches that will not marry gays and don't want to be told to do so. And there are Christian and Catholic churches who will marry gays, and yes, they read the same bible. Do not forget that ALL these different forms of religion emanating from the same book all have their OWN interpretation of this book. There's nothing to prevent me from interpreting it my way and opening my own church.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I guess I do not understand.

Can you explain your thinking in more detail?


After Edit:

What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.

if this makes sense.

If we are having civil unions recognised as a non religious state affair.... what might religious marriages have to do, or fight for, so that we never loose any of our rights, or risk them?

Honestly the only solution I really see, so that no one risks loosing rights, is simply to exclude any of this from being a government affair.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


It sounds to me like you're afraid of losing the right to interpret homosexuality as wrong, because that's the only thing I could possibly see that would make sense. In any other scenario, gays suddenly being allowed marriage doesn't change ANYTHING about heterosexual marriages, religious or otherwise. No rights are lost whatsoever.

Therefore, I imagine you fear losing the right to think of homosexuality as morally wrong. What else could it be? That would be a case of a government stepping in and saying, "You have to marry homosexuals and you have to accept them," which though I'm gay, I disagree with because like it or not, that would unfair.

But what other rights are you afraid of losing, and HOW? Non-sensical.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
In this day and age people do not need the permission of a church to get married, so gay marriage should not be an issue.

I don't understand why gay people are not allowed to get married in some places?

All men/women are equal, and should be treated as such.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   



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.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.

edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


Do you think that there are no gay religious people?

That's what I'm getting. I know gay people who are Christians and want their marriage recognized as such....ya know that whole thing about it being between the couple and god...blah blah blah.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.

edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


Do you think that there are no gay religious people?

That's what I'm getting. I know gay people who are Christians and want their marriage recognized as such....ya know that whole thing about it being between the couple and god...blah blah blah.


Nope my husband is a "born again Christian"...I won't pretend like I know what that means or how it's different than any other religious person but that's another thread entirely.

And nothing changes for them, all they need to do is find a church to provide a "marriage" licence.

The only place that it makes a difference is on the piece of paper you receive after you are married. Otherwise the term, is really just symbolic and not worth fighting over if it's the only thing that will prevent a whole group of people from being treated equal under the law.

Don't you think?

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Originally posted by tothetenthpower
And nothing changes for them, all they need to do is find a church to provide a "marriage" licence.


Churches here cannot provide legal licenses, "marriage" or otherwise. You could probably find a church that would perform a ceremony and call it "marriage" (in the eyes of God), but most require that the marriage go through the state. And if you did have this ceremony, it wouldn't be a legal marriage and there would be no state or federal benefits.

If we had a civil union that provided the same rights and benefits of legal marriage, I'd be all over that.
But at this time, we don't have that option.
edit on 7/26/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


here in America you get two licenses, one is from your religious instituion, and the religious person who oversees the ceremony also signs the state document. This way we have one for the religious aspect. It is currently recognised by the state for most religions because of religious freedom and marriage being regarded as a religious matter, but you still have to go through the states process too and give them their money... since the state charges you.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Originally posted by OpinionatedB
here in America you get two licenses,


The one from your church is symbolic and does not convey any rights or benefits. That's what I mean by "legal" marriage.

I only have one marriage license.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


To sum it all up in a nutshell. Freedom of Religion guarantees that people are not beholden to dogmas that they don't believe in so by our Constitution that should not be an issue. The Declaration of Independence states:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Equality and the freedom to live your life as you choose, provided you aren't harming anyone. So my question to the OP is, what is there exactly to be confused about?

It doesn't have to be about religion or legal protections. It is simply about people doing something because they want to. Would you like to be told no that you can't marry another consenting adult human that you love? I don't think anyone would, so how dare it even be a question to begin with?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I did not ever say I did not think people should be treated equally.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


If you do think people should be treated equally then what are you confused about regarding two consenting adult humans choosing to get married?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I have already spoken on this to the tenth power and have a full grasp now.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

Therefore, why do gays and lesbians want to get married under a God who has already made clear His position about such a union?



I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, though I know it's going to sound like it: which God? Maybe they have a different one than you, and gay marriage is perfectly okay with their version.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join