Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue? How Do We Untie This Knot?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Good points. My thinking is that I'm not sure it should be a matter of individual States to decide anymore than "conventional marriage" is. Granted each State has different requirements etc to obtain a marriage license or to consider a couple legally married, but once done a conventional marriage is legal across all of the States. I'm not a fan of the Federal government much at the moment but I do feel either it needs to recognize gay marriages or unions in the same way it does conventional marriage or it needs to recognize neither.

As far as religion goes, I think that should the federal government decide to recognize gay marriage/unions they need to not ever try to force all religious institutions to accept.

reply to post by Kali74

Originally posted by Kali74
Granted each State has different requirements etc to obtain a marriage license or to consider a couple legally married, but once done a conventional marriage is legal across all of the States.

It's only legal across the other 49 states because THEIR laws say so. Each state can decide if other states' marriages are legal in their state. There is no federal rule or law that says once married, it's legal in all states.

The federal government DOES give some tax and other benefits to married couples. That's what makes marriage (and the discrimination laws around marriage) a federal issue.

I'm not a fan of the Federal government much at the moment but I do feel either it needs to recognize gay marriages or unions in the same way it does conventional marriage or it needs to recognize neither.

It does. In those states where marriage equality is the law, the federal government treats all marriages exactly the same. It recognizes gay marriage if the state allows it.

As far as religion goes, I think that should the federal government decide to recognize gay marriage/unions they need to not ever try to force all religious institutions to accept.

IMO, NO religion should ever be forced to marry gay people, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say "religious institutions". If you mean hospitals and colleges that are affiliated with religion, then they should obey the laws of the state and federal government, just like everyone else. In other words, in a Catholic hospital located in a state where gay marriage is legal, gay people should be able visit their spouse in the hospital and make legal decisions for them, regardless the Catholic view of their marriage.

It's good to see you.

reply to post by Kali74

It can't be both. We know that some Christian Churches accept homosexuality and will conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples as do some Judaic Temples and very rarely has an Imam (Islamic religious leader) given a blessing for a same sex couple.

And any church that does this will pay the consequences in the end too. To call yourself a christian and still be homosexual is like saying Christ was a homosexual, because the word "christian" means to be "like Christ" or "little Christ". It's making fun of Yeshua and mocking him is what theyre doing. Oh sure gay people can become christian but only after they ask Yeshua for forgiveness and then turn their backs on that lifestyle (Repent means to choose to no longer do certain things). Homosexuality is one of the many practices of the Nicolaitans and Christ hates the Nicolaitans so from his standpoint that should tell you where he stands on the matter.

Well I personally think the entire matter is completely unnatural.

Marriage that is. Humans are not meant to be monogomous for their entire lives, nor are we meant to be penned away in little nuclear family units. When looked at from a bigger picture the these to institutions imho only serve to increase the separateness of the human species from each other and we have all been conditioned by society to believe that this is how we should live our lives.

However if two people want to enter into such a union then there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't be allowed just because they both have dangly bits between their legs. I mean really, there isn't enough love in this world as it is. Why do people get so worked up over such BS when a child dies of starvation every 3 seconds, we are needlessly and recklessy destroying the planet and people are millions die each year in unnecessary wars which only serve the agendas of an elite few.

This is really a simple problem to solve.

If it doesn't hurt or harm you or your're family........It's ok..

If it doesn't hurt or harm anyone....It's ok...

If it bothers the religious.....Too bad!....This is America, and we all have the right to pursue happiness, this includes the gays and lesbians trying to be happy and marry the person they love.

They have the right to take care of the person they love by doing things like adding them to their health-care insurance.

Being able to adopt children, who need a good home, and parents that will love them.

So many things they can accomplish by having a marriage certificate.

The worlds changing, and we must change with it. The civil rights movement was huge too. Imagine the first time a black family walked into the restaurant that had always been segregated. Now imagine all whites sitting in there when they walked in. It's ok, just part of the modern day era we live in. Accept change, It's going to happen no matter what you believe, think, or teach your children.

With that being said, My personal view is it's sick, disgusting and cannot and never have been able to understand the lifestyle. Haven't decided if its genetic, or mental illness. But, I decided few years ago, if it doesn't hurt me or mine, let'em say "I Do" like the rest of us and be just as miserable lmao..That's my 2 cents.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Kali74

 

It can't be both. We know that some Christian Churches accept homosexuality and will conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples as do some Judaic Temples and very rarely has an Imam (Islamic religious leader) given a blessing for a same sex couple.

And any church that does this will pay the consequences in the end too. To call yourself a christian and still be homosexual is like saying Christ was a homosexual, because the word "christian" means to be "like Christ" or "little Christ". It's making fun of Yeshua and mocking him is what theyre doing. Oh sure gay people can become christian but only after they ask Yeshua for forgiveness and then turn their backs on that lifestyle (Repent means to choose to no longer do certain things). Homosexuality is one of the many practices of the Nicolaitans and Christ hates the Nicolaitans so from his standpoint that should tell you where he stands on the matter.

Imagine if you may that you are an all powerful being capable of anything, let's call you 'Yeshua'. Now imagine you've just created an entire universe, full of stars, galaxies, black holes etc. Within this universe you've also created 'life', a system where matter instead of degenerating into its simplest form actually becomes more complex, and takes on the most fantastical forms with such intircate yet beautiful complexity.......

Now think. If you were such an omnipotent beautiful being capable of all this, would you really care where some dude sticks his pork sword?

In fact the one thing that would piss me off (if I were such a being) would be all the lies and misunderstandings perpetuated in my name by a group of people who for the past few thousand years have been following the teachings of a group of bronze-age middle eastern goatherders, especially after I sent them an emissary on my behalf to promote the ideals of love and togetherness.

Christ does not hate, not the Nico-whateverans nor anybody else.

.......so from his standpoint that should tell you where he stands on the matter.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
However if two people want to enter into such a union then there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't be allowed just because they both have dangly bits between their legs.

Exactly. The state doesn't have a problem honoring and enforcing a contract for buying a car. They don't check out the sexual organs of two people who wish to enter into a contract to have some work done on their home. They protect each party of the contract. Why is marriage so different? It should be freely available, just as other legal state contracts are.

Good question and one, I might add, seemingly easily rectified.

My suggestion would be that we don't call it same-sex marriage. Marriage, like it or not, has had distinct meaning for many generations as the uniting of a man and woman, whether that be before god, two families, etc.

The government, in an attempt not to define or uphold or create any such religious institution (1st amendment), should not worry itself with the word marriage. To do so, only opens the religious aspect of this and all the issues we see today.

The government should only be interested in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, from their perspective that means fair and equal treatment under the law.

Therefore, if the government wishes to be involved, then it MUST state that for the purposes of said equality and fairness under the law, that it will only recognize civil UNIONS.

That means, whether m/f, m/m or f/f, everyone is treated the same from a government standpoint.

Now, marriage (not only an act/ceremony, but a LIFESTYLE), should be left alone to the two individuals who wish to call how they live their life however they want.

My only beef with this argument, is with government trying to define marriage. I see it as an impossibility that the government will ever endorse such things as long as they continue to use the word marriage. Until government relinquishes control of the word from its vocabulary and adopts the language of civil unions, then no progress without much controversy can be had.

reply to post by Kali74

It can't be both.

Sure it can

Everyone should have the right to marry who they want - and have that marriage be recognized as a legitimate marriage in very sense of the word. And to have the ceremony of their dreams

What we can't do is force people to accept this on a personal level. We can't and shouldn't expect people with strong religious views against this to accept this in their places of worship - and we absolutely cannot insist that they perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs - that would be trampling on their rights

But there are more and more religious people who are willing to embrace this idea - and embrace everyone

There are plenty of other spiritual options that heterosexual people have been choosing for themselves for years now - that are now also options for everyone

The religious don't have to accept this as personal belief - they only have to allow others to do what they are also free to do

the concept of marriage doesn't belong to religion - in an ideal world people who love each other and want to commit to each other, stand up before their loved ones and declare their love - and then have a giant party celebrating their union - should be able to do all of that. Same as anyone

Same sex couples often have spiritual and/or religious beliefs - even if their own religions aren't on board. So, they might not get to have the Catholic wedding of their dreams...not yet. Not until the Pope is comfy with the idea - and I'm guessing that's a ways down the road yet

I know I'm preaching to the choir here Kali - and I'm not telling you anything you don't already know

so, I guess I'm curious - why is this confusing for you?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
and then have a giant party celebrating their union

Right, and government should recognize civil unions not marriage. This allows for equal treatment for everyone.

Then, couple can openly call their unions whatever they wish. But, there must be a separation of terms for the purpose of government, otherwise this will always have a religious implication and encroach on the 'no establishment of religion' clause of the 1st Amendment.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


The issue of gay marriage is not confusing to me at all. Two consenting adults decide to form a legal partnership generally based on a romantic love for one another. It should be a given. My confusion comes in on why isn't it a given. Why if I'm a lesbian in Massachusetts where I have married my girlfriend and she is my next of kin and able to make medical decisions on my behalf according to my wishes, but my work forces me to transfer to another state or lose my job but that state doesn't recognize my marriage. Now I have to choose between becoming unemployed or unmarried. No hetero married couple would ever have to make this choice. So how do we fix this?

Originally posted by popsmayhem
Why should the states and THE PEOPLE
not have the right to vote pass and have a say
if THEIR state will accept gay marriage..

It is none of the federal governments business
what the states want to do with this matter..

Start letting the feds decide everything and
we will end up far worse off. THEY have their
hand in everything and it should be up TO THE PEOPLE
not the rule of a small few... INSANE

The people should never decide what is and isn't illegal
That is a democracy. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

If the federal government decided to let popular thinking decide a states law verses a overall principled set of laws, then we would have slavery, murder squads for every type of felony, forced religion in some states, etc...hell, might even be a few witch burnings still going on in some states.

The people in pop groups are moronic. Nobody with an IQ higher than a fruit fly wants a democracy.

Men are too shy and becoming gays

There is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual.Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful.


Thank god i'm straight and not a shy bag

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

The issue of gay marriage is not confusing to me at all. Two consenting adults decide to form a legal partnership generally based on a romantic love for one another. It should be a given. My confusion comes in on why isn't it a given. Why if I'm a lesbian in Massachusetts where I have married my girlfriend and she is my next of kin and able to make medical decisions on my behalf according to my wishes, but my work forces me to transfer to another state or lose my job but that state doesn't recognize my marriage. Now I have to choose between becoming unemployed or unmarried. No hetero married couple would ever have to make this choice. So how do we fix this?

Easy, the state and federal government would have to legally define that no matter gender, what you have is a civil union. That means every couple, m/f, m/m, m/f would sign that piece of paper stating that they are engaging in a civil union for the purpose of government recognition and the benefits that come with it.

Your marriage and my marriage can be defined however we wish, although we might have different views on what marriage means to us.

reply to post by Freenrgy2

Right, and government should recognize civil unions not marriage. This allows for equal treatment for everyone.

Then, couple can openly call their unions whatever they wish. But, there must be a separation of terms for the purpose of government, otherwise this will always have a religious implication and encroach on the 'no establishment of religion' clause of the 1st Amendment.

ah, semantics...and the power of language

you were so close Freenrgy - this close :-)

religion doesn't own the word marriage

maybe at some point you'll realize - true freedom and real, genuine, honest and for reals equality require we let go of these notions - the word marriage belongs to everyone

so does the idea - and so should the practice

everyone should be free to marry

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
And any church that does this will pay the consequences in the end too. To call yourself a christian and still be homosexual is like saying Christ was a homosexual, because the word "christian" means to be "like Christ" or "little Christ".

I see

So, what -exactly- did Christ say specifically about homosexuality then?
Also, what did he say about tattoos?
Both are forbidden in the OT...I assume Christ clarified this with words that came directly from his mouth verses many years later someone decided what he probably thought on the matter.

So ya, will be waiting for the quotes directly from the mouth of Jesus on matters of homosexuality and tattoos.

..and waiting...

...and waiting...

(hint, jesus said absolutely nothing about it)

Originally posted by SaturnFX
(hint, jesus said absolutely nothing about it)

Not necessarily true...

If you love me, love the least of these...

reply to post by Kali74

The issue of gay marriage is not confusing to me at all. Two consenting adults decide to form a legal partnership generally based on a romantic love for one another. It should be a given

.

Agreed - it should be a given

My confusion comes in on why isn't it a given.

Because polite society ( ) hasn't been able to warm up to the idea yet - they believe it's wrong. And so far - they've been the majority and had all the influence

Now I have to choose between becoming unemployed or unmarried. No hetero married couple would ever have to make this choice. So how do we fix this?

We make same sex marriage legal - and we're well on our way to doing just that

again - you know all this - so everything I just said is going to sound condescending - not what I intended at all. I'm really just interested in your OP. You asked:

Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue? How Do We Untie This Knot?

What knot? Religion has no authority over this. People with religious beliefs will be free to believe what they believe - same as always

Same sex couples will be free to marry - same as anybody. Same as all citizens

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

Right, and government should recognize civil unions not marriage. This allows for equal treatment for everyone.

Then, couple can openly call their unions whatever they wish. But, there must be a separation of terms for the purpose of government, otherwise this will always have a religious implication and encroach on the 'no establishment of religion' clause of the 1st Amendment.

ah, semantics...and the power of language

you were so close Freenrgy - this close :-)

religion doesn't own the word marriage

maybe at some point you're realize - true freedom and real, genuine, honest and for reals equality requires we let go of these notions - the word marriage belongs to everyone

so does the idea - and so should the practice

everyone should be free to marry

Semantics is right, which is why government should define it legally as a civil union.

Then, YOU ARE FREE TO CALL YOUR UNION WHATEVER YOU WISH!

You would be FREE TO MARRY. It's just that, for government purposes, it will be known as a civil union.

Just an FYI, my brother is gay and I would LOVE for him to have equal right rights under the law. I just don't ever see this happening as long as the government tries to define marriage. They shouldn't.

Remember the question. We're only talking about the role of government in this.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


the truth is - you and I have no real argument :-)

but - you're a stickler for detail - and maybe miss the nuance

marriage is what they're after and marriage is the word they want to be able to use - along with everything that comes with that word - the whole ball of wax

seems silly - but it's not

the very real effect of one word is the difference between true equality and separate but equal

separate but equal won't fly - and it shouldn't be allowed to fly

of course we are free to believe what we want and to believe and to assign meaning to words in a way that makes sense to us

but in this situation - marriage is the word

Just an FYI, my brother is gay and I would LOVE for him to have equal right rights under the law.

well, we're not quite there - but we're closing in

but just for grins, ask your brother - if he was ready to be in a committed relationship - would he prefer a civil union - or a marriage?

:-)

you know - I do understand what you're saying - I'm just not willing to settle

I'm stubborn like that