Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by mideast


By that thinking those couples unable to reproduce could not be considered married either. Since steralization is also on the rise due to increased industrial presence in our lives, I think your line of thinking would oppress hetero couples as well. Not everyone can have children you know.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Religions are the ones who defined marriage to begin with.

did u actually read what Titen-Sxull and kaylaluv posted?

Originally posted by OpinionatedBthis is the one reason I would fight same sex marriage, to change marriage into a irreligious thing, is trying to redefine a religious institution.

I would not fight equal rights under the law, quite the opposite actually, but I would fight changing an institution that is religious and defined by religion.

marriage does not originate from religion even if it is religious to some people. its not religious to all. besides its already irreligious to atheists and people who do not recognize the church when getting married. marriage is a tool and a symbol. different people with different belief systems have different ways of poeticizing it.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
But I repeat, marriage is not a public institution, never has been.

It really doesn't matter how many times you repeat it. That doesn't make it true.

Let me ask you this... Can a couple just arrange a legal marriage with their pastor/church without going through the state? No. The state MUST be involved. On the other hand, can a couple arrange a legal marriage without going through the church? Absolutely! Happens all the time.

Why not say the institution itself is not then something you believe in, since there is no other part of the institution that you do?

Because I DO believe in marriage! It just doesn't mean the same thing to me that it does to you.

In doing so, you are attempting to make religion itself irreligious.

I am? LOL! I don't CARE what other people's marriages or religion entail. That's their business. It doesn't affect my life or my marriage. The only marriage I care about is mine. I don't typically stick my nose in other people's personal relationships, bedrooms or their religion. It's none of my business.

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by quietlearner

 

When they come to realize that personal opinion should take a back seat to preserving the American dream, this will be a much better country.

I don't care if you are for or against gay people. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. When you can't tell me a reason other than a personal opinion with no constitutional basis, I call it what it is. Oppression, the very thing the constitution was written to protect us from.

I already outlined a way to deal with the problem, and make both sides happy while preserving the American dream. They don't want my idea though. It's too much like right.

When you violate the liberty of any human in America, Thomas Jefferson sheads another tear for them.

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

you seem to base your way of thinking on the constitution, and most people due
I like to see this issue as more of a social issue than a constitution issue
I think the core of the problem is not how you interpret the constitution
its more of a social, cultural, ideological beliefs problem. Laws are made to represent those social, cultural, ideological beliefs.

I really doubt Thomas Jefferson would agree to legalize gay marriage

edit: actually I have no idea what Thomas Jefferson would have said about gay marriage and so do you
so lets not imply that by blocking gay marriage we are making Thomas Jefferson cry

it would be nice to resuscitate him or find a real channeler and ask him ourselfs, but thats not gonna happen

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Actually yes we can!

If I want to get married before God, I do not need any state involvement whatsoever.

The ONLY reason to have state involvement is for tax breaks and so the children would carry the fathers last name legally

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Religions are the ones who defined marriage to begin with.

How can religion define marriage when marriage was here before religion? What you mean is, religion stole the concept of marriage and made up a bunch of rules.

Here's something that will really cook your noodle: ancient records show that gay marriage was totally acceptable in early Christianity.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

anthropologist.livejournal.com...

reply to post by Tramadolnights

to think that I could bring a child onto this earth and he will not know his place because he is treated like a woman.

You're afraid your son will be treated like a woman? And how exactly do you want women to be treated? What exactly is the "place" that a man should have? Not only does your post reveal homophobia but also sexism.

You are doing it to turn our society into one where gender roles mean nothing.

Spoken like someone who's never even talked to a homosexual before in their life. I've had friends who were otherwise perfectly straight-seeming come out of the closet before. Men who fit the classic male 'gender role' can also be gay and there are plenty of effeminate seeming men who are straight.

You also imply that your idea of gender roles doesn't involve women being equal to men, since you are worried about your son being treated like a woman.

You are doing it to spite Christians.

Christians deserve to be spited. I'm not gay but I am a former Christian and if there's one religion that's had it coming for a long damn time it's Christianity (and Islam, but that's a story for another thread). Jesus never says anything about homosexuality, the closest you can get in the new testament is some of the Apostle Paul's work. Opening up the can of worms that is the Old Testament to justify homophobic stupidity doesn't help either as the Old Testament endorses slavery.

It is actually scary if I'm entirely honest

What's scary is that anyone in the 21st century with internet access could hold your opinions.

Also notice the way you've phrased things. You're accusing the poster you were replying to by using a big YOU, as in to include him in with the homosexual "menace" you perceive as a threat. I imagine you talk to your friends of African descent using the term "you people" as well, it would definitely suit someone on your intellectual level.

You are doing it to spite heterosexual people.

As a heterosexual male I've never felt "spited" by gays. They're just people trying to live their lives who happen to be attracted to the same gender, whoop-dee-snipping-doo.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Religion existed LONG before Christianity. We have record of religion since man started to write! Early Christians were Jews first, and they did not have homosexual marriage.

And the Gods of the people of Socrates were recognised by the state! He was accused of heresy and put to death for opposing the Gods of the state! They had marriage to, a religious institution still which was recognised by the state.

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by mideast

 

By that thinking those couples unable to reproduce could not be considered married either. Since steralization is also on the rise due to increased industrial presence in our lives, I think your line of thinking would oppress hetero couples as well. Not everyone can have children you know.

No , I didn't mean that marriage is all about children , breeding and inheriting.

+ Marriage is not the ultimate goal of life , IMO.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
The ONLY reason to have state involvement is for tax breaks and so the children would carry the fathers last name legally

You are so focused on "tax breaks" you are missing all other things that are LEGAL benefits to being married. It is not just about taxes.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

www.nolo.com

And you are wrong about needing to be married to use the father's last name on the birth certificate. Many states allow you to choose any name you please for the birth certificate. I could name my child Strawberry Blue Cake if I so choose. Even if my last name was Smith. The only thing being married affords a couple at birth is the father being listed as the father on the birth certificate (in some states that is automatic).

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Religion existed LONG before Christianity. We have record of religion since man started to write!

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

Yes, there have been many religions before Christianity. But marriage was around even before that. The point is, religion didn't have anything to do with marriage in the beginning. Religious organizations saw an opportunity to control the institution of marriage, so came along after the fact to "claim" it.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Religion existed LONG before Christianity. We have record of religion since man started to write!

And the Gods of the people of Socrates were recognised by the state! He was accused of heresy and put to death for opposing the Gods of the state!

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

"The concept of marriage predates Christianity and the other two forms of Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam which share a common origin and common values. Marriage is very ancient dating back beyond recorded history and was practiced by all people of many cultures, ethnicities and belief systems on all continents.

The prevalence of the concept of marriage came to the forefront of culture when humankind evolved from hunter gatherer to agriculture and pastoralism which occurred during the neolithic/agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago.

Originally "marriage" was a private, binding contract between clans (families) to form an alliance, thereby increasing the clan's chances for survival in war against rival clans. A "dowry" was given by each clan to "seal the deal". Marriage was contractual, considered a passing of "property" between clans as a symbol of intention to honor the agreement being made. Property took many forms: cattle, land, children, whatever was considered to be of great value at the time. In the United Kingdom, a requirement for a public announcement in a Christian parish (banns of marriage) was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. This set the precedent for marriage as is recognised by the Christian community.

The origins of marriage is NOT religious, nor does it have anything to do with the God of the Abrahamic religions. It was around way before organised religion which by Christian standards means it is PAGAN. Christians "borrowed" many pagan rites and rituals so Pagans would convert more readily and easily to Christianity.

In modern times in the United States, before a legal marriage ceremony can be performed, one must obtain a marriage license from government authorities. When a legally married couple seeks a divorce they must go before a judge to have the marriage annulled. Ministers and priests do not issue legally binding marriage licenses, nor do they have the legal authority to grant a divorce. The religious concept of marriage has nothing to do with the legal concept. Church and State are completely separate in the case of the institution of marriage."

edit: as posted by cetaphobic here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by quietlearner


You're right. We have no issue. In order to have an issue, both sides must be able to argue for their chosen side politically. Anti-gay supporters can't do that. Which is why religion is dragged into it. It's the only means they have to seriously sway society. This kind of situation is exactly why religion was seperated from state.

The constitution is the highest law in the land. No law can be written that opposes it. Yet we have those arguing that the biblical defenition of marriage should apply to the legal one, which it shouldn't.

By that thinking any law on the books right now that extends the biblical defenition of marriage to the legal one, should be overturned.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
To me the answer is just the opposite, make all marriages something not recognised by the state, since it is a religious institution, and guarentee all peoples equal rights and equal treatment under the law

Getting the state out of marriage would actually work for me. Strip all state and federal benefits from marriage (the religious ones, too), abolish the legal institution of marriage and let the church do whatever they want.

But that's not the way it IS, and it's VERY unlikely that the population would agree to that. As it is, most marriages are legal institutions about love and commitment, whether religious or not. Our culture right now is such that people like the idea of marriage and wouldn't easily give it up.

Originally posted by OneisOne
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
The ONLY reason to have state involvement is for tax breaks and so the children would carry the fathers last name legally

You are so focused on "tax breaks" you are missing all other things that are LEGAL benefits to being married. It is not just about taxes.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

www.nolo.com

And you are wrong about needing to be married to use the father's last name on the birth certificate. Many states allow you to choose any name you please for the birth certificate. I could name my child Strawberry Blue Cake if I so choose. Even if my last name was Smith. The only thing being married affords a couple at birth is the father being listed as the father on the birth certificate (in some states that is automatic).

Absolutely true there. I am a single father, never been married, and my daughter has had my last name since day 1. Perfectly legal.

reply to post by krossfyter


Supposed Pagan religions still were religious, whether or not the religion itself recognised the woman as property or a person with rights is a different story, but it was still in all cultured defined by how their religion defined it!

Since mankind began to write!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Why do you think people would not agree to all people having the same rights under the law?

reply to post by mideast


You can define marriage any way you see fit. Just don't tell me that the legal defenition of marriage only applies to those deemed worthy by the church. That's unconstitutional.

reply to post by AnarchysAngel


What I am discussing IS the definition of marriage.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
If I want to get married before God, I do not need any state involvement whatsoever.

I specifically said "legally married". You cannot get LEGALLY married by just the church. But you can get LEGALLY married by just the state.