Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I certainly hope not! After all, it took a man and a woman to produce each one of us! What does this mean? Certainly not what? I'm not sure how this relates to my post. Are you suggesting that humans will be an endangered species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The driver for legalizing is money, not love. In many areas, the school district is the major employer. Adding yet more elderly or disabled to their benefit plan will be quite costly to the taxpayer. (School districts do have gay employees, as well as co-habitating.) Yes, I' know, the governor has suggested consolidation. How about we just consolidate to one state wide district for bennies and for the special education medical costs, rather than sticking it to people in sparesely populated areas? The federal government is already allowing benefits for domestic partnerships without marriage. So, I don't think that's true. http://www.govexec.c...partners/56913/ eta second link dealing with the military: http://www.defense.g...enefitsmemo.pdf Unless, your argument is that the driver for ALL marriages is money. It is part of what allows me to stay home while dh works, be covered under his work insurance, receive ss benefits if he dies, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's a political statement, and if you happen to be a supporter of traditional marriage, the Family Research Council has come out with a counter-meme. It's actually a human statement. A statement of love. A statement of fairness. A statement of standing up for people who deserve the same rights that you have. It's not political. Not one person who is standing up for wanting the LGBT community to be included in a definition of marriage is against traditional marriage. The above symbol is ridiculous in the context that the FRC is putting it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I just don't see how it hurts traditional marriage to allow people of the same sex to marry. It's not like I'll be less married if my two male friends get married. IMO, divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than gays being allowed to marry. Honestly, I've been thinking about this. I hear one argument a lot saying that allowing gay people to marry is giving them a special privilege, because no one is stopping them from getting married...they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, like everyone else. Um, don't you think encouraging marriage to someone you are not in love with or attracted to is going to erode marriage faster than just allowing people to marry who they actually love? I would think that's going to lead to more divorces than gay people getting to marry each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I mean, if you look at a school district and follow the money, you will see that many districts are funded more by the people in the area than by the state or local businesses as the school is the only major employer within the district's boundaries.. Once nontraditional marriage is legalized, you will find significantly more people on the school's health insurance and the pension retirement w/survivor's option, and that cost will be shoved on to the taxpayer, just as it was done for the 19 to 26 age group that doesn't attend college full time. Oh noes! More people will be eligible for health care! Don't want that now, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Then what, exactly, is the definition of marriage? Are we ready to accept a definition of marriage that could include polygamy, or marriage of siblings, a parent and child, etc? In response to this genre of argument, I present you the following counter-argument from Rob Delaney on Twitter. (Modified for language): †@robdelaney16h If gay people can get married, what’s to stop me from marrying this toaster? *points at bag of oranges & poops pants for 3 1/2 hours* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girl Power Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Nt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Nt I'm just ready for people to change back because I cannot easily tell people apart now. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runningmom80 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In response to this genre of argument, I present you the following counter-argument from Rob Delaney on Twitter. (Modified for language): †Rod delaney is my all time favorite "tweeter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 What does this mean? Certainly not what? I'm not sure how this relates to my post. Are you suggesting that humans will be an endangered species? And wouldn't it be just AWFUL if it were easier for gay couples to adopt all the children out there no one else is adopting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimeeM Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 My own personal preferences aside, I do not believe the government should have ANY hand in defining marriage. Period. 'Couse, that's just the libertarian in me saying our government needs to lesson their hold and reach, not apply it into a portion of our personal lives that in no way, shape, or form infringes upon the rights of other individual citizens. My initial statement (sentence) also means that I do not believe the government should be allowed to "allow" gay marriage or civil unions as such unions are seen outside of a religious institution - it never should have been NOT ALLOWED in the first place. It always should have remained that churches retain the right to not marry anyone they choose; if a couple wants to retain the same rights, responsibilities, and privs... legally and in the eyes of the government... it never should have been an issue. I do not wholly agree with gay marriage from a religious and personal perspective. I also, however, strongly disagree with personal morals or religious beliefs dictating the laws of an entire country. Some random famous person (the name of whom I can't recall at the moment) once said something along the lines of: "In order for an act to be a crime, someone must be harmed - there must be a victim. Anything that is peaceful, voluntary, and honest should be tolerated and respected regardless of whether we agree with it. Part of the price of freedom is allowing others to be free." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girl Power Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm just ready for people to change back because I cannot easily tell people apart now. :p Ok, I think this works. I accidentally posted the link to my Facebook page. Can't have everybody knowing my true identity, you know. I'm like batman that way https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151849000972575&set=a.10150726172387575.506205.618302574&type=1&ref=nf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Here in NY our school taxes average $500 a month on a 1800 sq ft home on a 0.1 acre lot. A 2000 sq ft home on 3 acres is about $1250/mo. The majority goes to employee benefits. Do I want to pay more, in order to allow a capable person to retire after just 20 years, or to never work, while I continue to give them more benefits than even the most profitable, biggest corporate employer can afford? How many people do you want to support while you work until you are at least 67? Do you think gay marriage is the cause of this problem? Because I'm in NY state too, and yes, my school taxes are outrageous. But the vast majority of the spousal benefits are for the spouses of straight employees. My gay friends and family who work for the school district (I know at least 4) don't deserve that same benefit? If the benefit is too expensive, then perhaps it should be changed, but really denying a small percentage of the school employees a benefit that the majority of the employees have in order to reduce taxes doesn't make any sense to me. Also gay marriage is legal in NY state and schools already pay benefits to same-sex spouses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 What does this mean? Certainly not what? I'm not sure how this relates to my post. Are you suggesting that humans will be an endangered species? I was referring to your comment that loving hetero marriage doesn't say anything about marriage equality one way or the other. In other words, one can be pro marriage equality and still be pro hetero marriage (so the logo with the man and woman doesn't really say anything about one's views of gay marriage). We don't have to attack the idea of hetero marriage to support gay marriage. Thus my comment about each of us being produced by a man and a woman. I was agreeing with you, not arguing with you. I have no fear of the human race becoming extinct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Here in NY our school taxes average $500 a month on a 1800 sq ft home on a 0.1 acre lot. A 2000 sq ft home on 3 acres is about $1250/mo. The majority goes to employee benefits. Do I want to pay more, in order to allow a capable person to retire after just 20 years, or to never work, while I continue to give them more benefits than even the most profitable, biggest corporate employer can afford? How many people do you want to support at a higher standard of living than what's left to you allows, while you work until you are at least 67? Well, move somewhere with lower taxes then! No need to deny someone else basic human rights. My tax money pays for things I personally find disgusting too. It's called living in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Here in NY our school taxes average $500 a month on a 1800 sq ft home on a 0.1 acre lot. A 2000 sq ft home on 3 acres is about $1250/mo. The majority goes to employee benefits. Do I want to pay more, in order to allow a capable person to retire after just 20 years, or to never work, while I continue to give them more benefits than even the most profitable, biggest corporate employer can afford? How many people do you want to support at a higher standard of living than what's left to you allows, while you work until you are at least 67? Clearly you have an issue with how your tax money is spent. The issue is not same sex marriage here it's what benefits and how many benefits one gets from a spouse's employer. The issue doesn't change whether the couple are opposite sex or same sex. The issue that is bugging you has to do with benefits, taxes, and who pays for what. Addressing spousal benefits is different from saying who can legally be a spouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Clearly you have an issue with how your tax money is spent. The issue is not same sex marriage here it's what benefits and how many benefits one gets from a spouse's employer. The issue doesn't change whether the couple are opposite sex or same sex. The issue that is bugging you has to do with benefits, taxes, and who pays for what. Addressing spousal benefits is different from saying who can legally be a spouse. This, exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Well, move somewhere with lower taxes then! No need to deny someone else basic human rights. My tax money pays for things I personally find disgusting too. It's called living in America. I have no more likes to give today. I'd like to say that I love you, but that might scare some away and shut down the entire thread. :lol: Seriously, though, excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Clearly you have an issue with how your tax money is spent. The issue is not same sex marriage here it's what benefits and how many benefits one gets from a spouse's employer. The issue doesn't change whether the couple are opposite sex or same sex. The issue that is bugging you has to do with benefits, taxes, and who pays for what. Addressing spousal benefits is different from saying who can legally be a spouse. I have no more likes left! Bah. You know I <3 you already. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not one person who is standing up for wanting the LGBT community to be included in a definition of marriage is against traditional marriage. The above symbol is ridiculous in the context that the FRC is putting it in. From what I understand, this is what conservatives are anticipating. They are worried that by legalizing marriage it will infringe on the rights of Churches and hetero marriages. For example, (from what I understand) there have already been cases where Catholic charities have been forced to shut down because they refuse to adopt a child to a gay couple, and the gay couple went nuclear on them. People are worried this will infringe on religious freedom. And I don't think legalizing it will make the issue go away. Abortion has been legal for decades and it's a constant issue, still. I am not meaning to equate abortion with gay marriage. I am very much against abortion but struggle to be against gay marriage, as a Catholic. My Church says it is wrong but I personally have nothing against gays having the same rights as straight people. But the arguments I hear about infringing on religious liberty do make me wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I don't see it as a disgrace. I think things will change. They already have changed. But change is painful sometimes. There was a time in the history of this country where black people weren't considered human and publicly expressing disgust towards them was acceptable. Now we have a black president. So hey, really, I believe anything is possible. Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. Please tell me you don't really believe this! It is not a choice. Could you "abstain" from loving someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. I'd like to see all of the straight people choose to abstain from being attracted to and loving a different-gendered person and wanting to share life with another person. You can Choose to not get married and be intimate with the person you love who is attracted to you. You can choose to live alone for your whole life, definitely. See how easy that was? Or, wait. . . are you married? ;) As soon as you're willing to give that up I think you might just be able to harbor legitimate complaint against gay people who seek the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Where is the line drawn though? What if a religious adoption agency refused to allow an adoption based on a person's race? I think many people would have a problem with that. I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate for that reason. And besides your example, what else would come up within this realm where it would be a major problem? Catholic Charities should have the right to do what they please though, right? Wasn't there also this issue with a private bakery where the baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? Even if you want to label him as close-minded and ridiculous, that should still be his right as a baker owning his own shop, right? If they don't like it they can go down the street and find another baker but didn't they make it into a huge issue somehow and try to shut down his bakery? It's his own bakery, why should he be FORCED to do something that goes against his personal religious beliefs? AFA Churches go, they shouldn't be FORCED to go against their ancient, religious beliefs. Race is not a moral issue, homosexuality is. Re: the bolded, the other issue I can think of is Churches being sued because they refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for a gay couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. Nice. Why should someone abstain from the behavior, especially if it has a biological basis? (To be clear, I don't think anyone should abstain from any such behavior when it is performed between consenting adults and isn't right out in public for everyone to see, just because I think intimate stuff should remain intimate.) I guess if someone is disgusted by the acts you choose to perform you would then choose to stop? Fair is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 From what I understand, this is what conservatives are anticipating. They are worried that by legalizing marriage it will infringe on the rights of Churches and hetero marriages. For example, (from what I understand) there have already been cases where Catholic charities have been forced to shut down because they refuse to adopt a child to a gay couple, and the gay couple went nuclear on them. People are worried this will infringe on religious freedom. And I don't think legalizing it will make the issue go away. Abortion has been legal for decades and it's a constant issue, still. I am not meaning to equate abortion with gay marriage. I am very much against abortion but struggle to be against gay marriage, as a Catholic. My Church says it is wrong but I personally have nothing against gays having the same rights as straight people. But the arguments I hear about infringing on religious liberty do make me wonder. The kicker is that the "Catholic charities" were accepting state funds to fund their fostering/adoption programs, but then discriminating against couples who were eligible to adopt under the law (one example is Illinois). FTR, they were not only discriminating against gay couples but also unmarried couples as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 From what I understand, this is what conservatives are anticipating. They are worried that by legalizing marriage it will infringe on the rights of Churches and hetero marriages. For example, (from what I understand) there have already been cases where Catholic charities have been forced to shut down because they refuse to adopt a child to a gay couple, and the gay couple went nuclear on them. People are worried this will infringe on religious freedom. And I don't think legalizing it will make the issue go away. Abortion has been legal for decades and it's a constant issue, still. I am not meaning to equate abortion with gay marriage. I am very much against abortion but struggle to be against gay marriage, as a Catholic. My Church says it is wrong but I personally have nothing against gays having the same rights as straight people. But the arguments I hear about infringing on religious liberty do make me wonder. The only reason it was an issue was because the agencies were receiving government funds. It's not an issue for strictly private charities. And they shut down because they were afraid of being sued for discrimination; they were not forced to shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Straight people do marry for benefits. This is not unheard of. It seems rather insulting to suggest the only reason any gay person would want to marry is for benefits. But maybe that is not what was meant. I have to agree. It happens around here all.the.time. My grandmother remarried after my grandfather died and while I can tell you she claimed it was love, it sooooooooooooooooo was not. He wanted someone to cook and clean, and she wanted his GM spousal benefits which included a very nice insurance policy that she hadn't had with grandpa. Watching them interact, it was clearly a relationship of mutual convenience and financial benefit. I see this very often amongst widows/widowers. I also know of a young couple who are married for benefits and not much else. One had a job with insurance, and the other had a health problem and desperately needed health bennies but didn't fall under the income level required to be eligible for state health insurance. The nice young man offered marriage so she could see the doctor. They live under one roof with separate bedrooms. I would suppose that if either of them actually met a love interest and decided to marry for other reasons, the marriage would be disolved without the slightest angst. It's not as common as marriage due to emotional attachments, but in this economy, you'd be surprised how many are making marriage decisions for financial reasons. My niece just accepted a marriage proposal from someone she likes, yet does not love. However, he is kind and very, very good to her little girl, and this puts her in a much more secure financial position. 100 years ago, this would have been common practice. Love, friendship, adoration, emotional attachment...often that was of no consequence. Not saying I'd like to return to that dynamic, but if the economy doesn't improve, we'll see more marriages take place for practical reasons. If the issue is the taxpayers paying benefits for those that marry for financial security, vs. those that marry for "love", I'm not certain what the criteria or investigative procedure would be in order for two people to legally marry. It's already quite the nightmare for immigrants to marry a citizen...it's a personal info colonoscopy that often does not end well no matter how much the two adults love each other. I can't imagine putting the whole population of consenting adults through such a process. I can tell you the taxpayer already supports "practical marriages" now and in far greater numbers than the average citizen would guess. That said, I'm not certain how that is germain to the Supreme Court case today. Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnIslandGirl Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. Oh my word! I am disgusted. The best sign I've seen so far said, "Even if being gay was a choice, so what? People choose to be A$$holes and they can get married." http://www.happyplace.com/8958/the-most-hilariously-convincing-gay-marriage-signs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4kidlets4me Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. So gay people should all be celibate? Or should they marry heterosexual people and live a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Catholic Charities should have the right to do what they please though, right? Correct. Unless they are accepting state funds. Wasn't there also this issue with a private bakery where the baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? Even if you want to label him as close-minded and ridiculous, that should still be his right as a baker owning his own shop, right? If they don't like it they can go down the street and find another baker but didn't they make it into a huge issue somehow and try to shut down his bakery? It's his own bakery, why should he be FORCED to do something that goes against his personal religious beliefs? The bakery case came down to whether or not a business is a public accommodation. The last I read a complaint was filed but I never saw what the resolution was. AFA Churches go, they shouldn't be FORCED to go against their ancient, religious beliefs. Race is not a moral issue, homosexuality is. And churches will not be forced to make any changes. Unless they are operating a public accommodation that receives state funding (ie the Catholic charities/adoption case). Re: the bolded, the other issue I can think of is Churches being sued because they refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for a gay couple. This won't happen, as that would violate the 1st Amendment. In the same way that non-Catholics cannot force the Catholic church to be married by a priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeenagerMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. Then should people who cannot biologically, naturally conceive a child be relegated to NEVER having a child, whether it be through artificial means (IVF, surrogacy, etc) or adoption? I mean, if they can't have one biologically, then they obviously shouldn't be parents and should repress their desire to love & parent a child the way a biological parent can. They should abstain from wanting to love a child because it's unnatural because they can't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFaerie Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 THIS is why... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Re: the bolded, the other issue I can think of is Churches being sued because they refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for a gay couple. Why do you think this would happen? Churches in very recent history have refused to marry interracial couples http://www.louisville.com/content/interracial-couple-banned-gulnare-freewill-baptist-church-kentucky-news or black couples http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding. A Rabbi is not required to marry two Christians. A church can require religious education classes or not. There may be backlash, but no lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The only reason it was an issue was because the agencies were receiving government funds. It's not an issue for strictly private charities. And they shut down because they were afraid of being sued for discrimination; they were not forced to shut down. Ohh okay, gotcha. I don't see why a church would be required to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. A church would refuse to marry me if I'm not a member of their church or if I refuse to jump through one of their required hoops. What would become of a bakery who won't bake a cake for a Chinese couple because they don't like Chinese people? Would that be ok? I could absolutely see a miffed gay couple trying to sue a Church or bringing religious persecution to prove a point that they should be equal and be able to get married anywhere they want. You keep bringing up race, this isn't about race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Polygamy could get tricky, though. Would a company be required to give spousal benefits to all 6 of a guy's wives? (or a girl's husbands... or...... you get my point.) They give benefits to my 5 kids (one of whom isn't dh's biological) and would if I had 19 and counting, as well! Why not my 2 or 5 or 8 spouses? They probably wouldn't need nearly as many vaccinations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I really wish that the term "marriage" would be a description of a religious sacrament of sorts and that a "civil union" would become the norm for all the rest of us that are not religious, regardless of the make up of our union (man/woman, woman/woman, man/man). Any federal, state and private benefits that are given to married folks could be offered to "civil union" folks as well. I'd be okay with being in a civil union. It would reflect my agnostic POV and I don't think my family is any less of a family because of this identifier. Just my .02 this morning. BTW, I didn't put any image on my FB, because I don't think defining "marriage" is the role of the SCOTUS. K I agree in a way. But then what to say when asked? "Oh, we're civil unionized!". Sounds weird. And marriage was there before Christianity. Just sayin! Do you have an accurate definition of the word marriage that applies unchanging throughout time and different cultures? Because the definition of marriage has changed a lot in even the last century, let alone all of history, and the US represents a lot of different cultures.... And if enough people got together and decided to change the definition of triangle, it could be done. Many, probably most, words in the English language have change definition at some point. Language evolves! Exactly. Marraige is an ancient social contruct that existed long before any organized religion. I think the real disingenuity in the whole debate lies in the attempt to misappropriate the term "marraige" to mean a narrowly defined religious construct - a definition, which if we look closely, we will find is not even supported by many major world religions because they will often have examples of marriages in their holy books and stories that do not fit this narrow criteria. So no, I do not think marriage is a description of a religious sacrament. And I do think people without religion can be married as well. Well, I married an atheist in a civil marriage, so I know it's possible! ;) I just don't even get these arguments against gay marriage. I have a feeling many of them have never spoken to a gay person. THEY ARE PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU. They love, commit, sometimes fall out of love. I mean, really, with a 50% divorce rate among the heterosexual couples in the US, who can blame the gays??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being a homophobe is also a chosen behavior. But see, bringing up the word homophobe in this context is a huge red herring. I have absolutely NOTHING against gay people from a personal standpoint. I would consider practicing a gay lifestyle and may be considered bisexual if it didn't go against my religious beliefs. But it does. Labeling people as homophobes and throwing out titles like that is a form of religious persecution, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 From what I understand, this is what conservatives are anticipating. They are worried that by legalizing marriage it will infringe on the rights of Churches and hetero marriages. For example, (from what I understand) there have already been cases where Catholic charities have been forced to shut down because they refuse to adopt a child to a gay couple, and the gay couple went nuclear on them. People are worried this will infringe on religious freedom. And I don't think legalizing it will make the issue go away. Abortion has been legal for decades and it's a constant issue, still. I am not meaning to equate abortion with gay marriage. I am very much against abortion but struggle to be against gay marriage, as a Catholic. My Church says it is wrong but I personally have nothing against gays having the same rights as straight people. But the arguments I hear about infringing on religious liberty do make me wonder. If Catholic Charities wants to be selective about adoptive parents to the extreme of discriminating against a segment of the population, then they need to do it on their own dime. That was the only issue there. They can't take state money and then be discriminatory. I can't imagine any real and actual threat to any religion or church by legalizing gay marriage. None. Churches would still be free to be just as bigoted as they wanted. Gay couples are looking for *legal* recognition. Not a blessing from Thor. And if they want Thor to bless them, too, and Thor says "no", then they're free to check out Horus. KWIM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I could absolutely see a miffed gay couple trying to sue a Church or bringing religious persecution to prove a point that they should be equal and be able to get married anywhere they want. You keep bringing up race, this isn't about race. Race is a good comparison in this case as the equal protection laws that cover racial discrimination would be the same ones applied in these cases. Private/religious organizations do have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they choose, and frequently exercise that right. There simply is no case law supporting the belief that a church could be forced to perform a marriage that goes against the beliefs of that church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Oh my word! I am disgusted. The best sign I've seen so far said, "Even if being gay was a choice, so what? People choose to be A$$holes and they can get married." http://www.happyplac...-marriage-signs I love that! Believe it or not, I know some people who are both gay and A$$holes. I still think they should be able to get married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughCollie Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 On the one hand I don't care that deeply what anyone calls it, but on the other hand, no I don't want a distinction to be made. It's really nobody's business in terms of the details of how I "hooked up" with my husband. KWIM? I've been "married" for 13 years. I don't suddenly want it called something else to appease religious people who I do not believe own the term. Gay marriage is a secular issue. Separation of church and state comes to mind. Many terms have more than one meaning, and marriage is one of them. That is my problem with calling gay marriages civil unions. I used to think gay marriages should be called civil unions so that we didn't have all this hoopla. But now I don't think that is what the hoopla is about -- it is a smokescreen, IMO. Sure, there are probably people who believe that marriage is a sacrament, and for them, it is. The problem arises when they think it is ONLY a sacrament, which is a bunch of hooey. There are millions of married couples in this nation who were married civilly. Every married couple has to have a marriage license issued by their state's government. Even common law marriages must meet the requirements of their state's laws. Naturally, any couple can say they are married without meeting their state's requirements, but that is meaningless. They are, in fact, similarly situated to a gay couple who is merely living together where the law is concerned, no matter what they believe about their personal union. The USA is a secular country, no matter that some politicians and citizens would like it to be otherwise. Sure, there are a lot of putative Christians living here, but even they argue about whether some people and denominations are Christians. Nonetheless, the presence of even a majority Christian population does not mean our country's laws should be determined by anyone who wants to pretend this is a theocracy. There are a lot of hypocrites weighing in on the gay marraige issue. Sometimes it reminds me of the arguments made during the time the Equal Rights Amendment was in the unsuccessful process of being ratified. Back then, a smokescreen issue (I think brought up by Phyllis Schlafly), was that if the ERA was passed, all public bathrooms would be unisex. Basically, there would be men and urinals in the lady's room! And what fresh horror will be foisted upon us if gay marriage is legalized? Why, it will destroy the institution of marriage. Never mind that in states where gay marriages are legal, the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. People still get married, and they still get divorced, and they still live together outside the bounds of matrimony. There are other smokescreen arguments against gay marriage, but I won't bore you with my opinions of them. Our current scientific understanding is that people do not choose to be gay. I understand that perfectly. I did not choose to be heterosexual. I just am, and there is nothing I can do about it. I can choose to have a relationship with a woman, but I don't want to. Even if I did, that would not make me gay. I would merely be a heterosexual female who is having a relationship with another female, and that would be no one else's business. I don't see any valid argument for gay people being a danger to society. I also don't see a valid argument for punishing people who are not dangerous for a characteristic they are born with. It is not reasonable to deny them the benefits of marriage. In our culture, people who love each other and who want to spend their lives together are married. Why deny the legal and personal benefits of secular marriage to a couple who is gay? It doesn't hurt the churches - they still have a choice about whether to perform the additional religious ceremony for gay people -- based on separation of church and state. So what is the hoopla about? Some of it is a slippery slope argument - next thing you know, polygamy, bestiality, child marriages, and pedophilia will be legal. Ridiculous! I'd like to see the so-called logic behind that. Some of it is religious in nature, but this is a secular country and no one has the right to force their religous beliefs down our country's throat. Some of it is the abhorrence some people feel towards gay people. Some people feel that way towards those of other races, towards those who have mental illnesses, towards those who are physically or mentally handicapped (differently-abled). Should we encourage this? I doubt any logical person could think so. So, in my view the hoopla is about prejudice and illogic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ohh okay, gotcha. I could absolutely see a miffed gay couple trying to sue a Church or bringing religious persecution to prove a point that they should be equal and be able to get married anywhere they want. You keep bringing up race, this isn't about race. Oh my. Gays are not suing the churches because they won't marry them. They are trying to get legislation passed in the GOVERNMENT for their union to be legalized. Sure there are some gay AND straight members of many churches wanting churches to stop persecuting gays, but that has nothing to do with *this issue*. Ad the church can say no. They'll lose some supporters, but that's a religious issue. The issue of gay marriage is a legal issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. That is one of the most offensive, stupid, and insulting things I've read here in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But see, bringing up the word homophobe in this context is a huge red herring. I have absolutely NOTHING against gay people from a personal standpoint. I would consider practicing a gay lifestyle and may be considered bisexual if it didn't go against my religious beliefs. But it does. Labeling people as homophobes and throwing out titles like that is a form of religious persecution, IMO. Ah yes, I knew this was coming. So predictable. Not at all religious persecution. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 So, all those for marriage equality surely support the polygamists too...... right? Otherwise you aren't for equality, you are just a hypocrite. Also, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony....what happened to that obsession with separation of church and state? I want government out of ALL marriage. I don't think I should have had to pay for permission to get married to my husband. I also think that divorce shouldn't be in the courts - if you get in to a contract then you find a way out of it - with attorneys and mediators that you pay to reach an agreement. Don't clog up the courts with your dysfunctional relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivka Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I want to share something written by my friend Gina: "In the summer of 1993, I boarded a C-5 Army plane en route to Somalia. As a United States Army officer in charge of security for the Port of Mogadishu, I was an integral part of the United Nations mission, Operation Continue Hope. I risked my life for my country – and for hope that we could help bring peace to Somalia. Still, my country did not stand for me and my family. It did not stand for me and my family when my truck hit a landmine, and my next-of-kin – my partner, Laura – was not called. It did not stand for me and my family when I came home, honored with a Purple Heart but with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – a disability I was offered treatment for but Laura was expected to navigate alone. In fact, my country still does not stand for me and my family for one simple reason – DOMA. As the Supreme Court deliberates, my family and I continue to hope for freedom and equality. After returning from Somalia, Laura stood by my side as I struggled through recovery. Yet she is not entitled to veteran survivor benefits. If something should happen to me, the business I own wouldn’t automatically go to Laura and if it did, she would incur prohibitive taxes. The most important benefit of marriage is the recognition that my relationship is important to my country. For centuries, the U.S. has declared that supporting committed couples is important – so important that marriage is intertwined in our federal laws. To be recognized as legal spouses by the federal government – and as importantly, the Veterans Administration – would be an acknowledgement of our 27-year partnership and of what we endured as a family during my service in Somalia. Hope alone won’t get us there. We need your support." Incidentally, I know Gina and Laura because they go to our church. Our church is over-the-moon excited about being able to marry the two of them legally now that Maryland has marriage equality. Those who cry out about "religious freedom" need to explain why our minister, in our church, should not have all of the wedding ceremonies he performs recognized by the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nukeswife Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But see, bringing up the word homophobe in this context is a huge red herring. I have absolutely NOTHING against gay people from a personal standpoint. I would consider practicing a gay lifestyle and may be considered bisexual if it didn't go against my religious beliefs. But it does. Labeling people as homophobes and throwing out titles like that is a form of religious persecution, IMO. I don't think this was directed at you. I think it was directed at the poster that said black people can't choose to not be black so it was ok for them to seek equal rights, but it's not ok for homosexuals to seek equal rights because even though it's got some biological basis, they can choose not to be gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I agree in a way. But then what to say when asked? "Oh, we're civil unionized!". Sounds weird. And marriage was there before Christianity. Just sayin! Exactly. Well, I married an atheist in a civil marriage, so I know it's possible! ;) I just don't even get these arguments against gay marriage. I have a feeling many of them have never spoken to a gay person. THEY ARE PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU. They love, commit, sometimes fall out of love. I mean, really, with a 50% divorce rate among the heterosexual couples in the US, who can blame the gays??? Umm, I have a gay couple that lives two doors down. We swap cookies during Christmas, we talk over the fence, we share garden plants. Calling people homophobes to validate your argument doesn't work. Marriage was there before Christianity. Exactly. Which is why it should still remain between a man and a woman (as in evolution needs the natural sex act to procreate). Change the estate laws, change the tax codes, change all of the other laws, and marriage doesn't have to be redefined. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I want government out of ALL marriage. I don't think I should have had to pay for permission to get married to my husband. I also think that divorce shouldn't be in the courts - if you get in to a contract then you find a way out of it - with attorneys and mediators that you pay to reach an agreement. Don't clog up the courts with your dysfunctional relationships. And when there are contract disputes and the both parties/attorneys cannot work it out, where do they end up? BTW, you can have a religious marriage without being sanctioned by the state, so yes, you can marry your husband without asking for permission from the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts