Conservatives, a question for you

[Freddie53]

Now to DC,


Marriage is defined as a covenant or contract between an man and a woman. It is a contract down at the courthouse. It is a covenant at the church. You asked for "in my words" a through, well thought out treatise" explaining the conservative viewpoint. You didn't get it. From Monty, you even got almost total agreement except for semantics. I don't promise to cover the whole sphere of debate, but will cover at least some of it.

In the church, a marriage is a covenant between God, the man and the woman. the term marriage to most Christians is a concept that God himself ordained and established. To those Jews and Christians they see marriage as a rite of the synogue or church. They see the state as making it legal. Some really way out there don't even believe a person is married in the eyes of God unless the marriage is performed by a minister. Some churches even do a religious cermony after a civil ceremony so it will not only be legal in civil court, but a marriage in God's eyes.

Now that sound fine and good. But history shows that other cultures and socieities had and have marriages besides Jews and Christians. The ancient Greeks and Romans had marriage.

The "history book" answer, not the religious answer is that marriage is an insittution to protect the family. Foremost was to protect the children and then secondly to protect the woman who had no rights or privedges in most ancient culotures. So from a secular historical prespective, mairrage is an institution to protect the family that is to provide a setting for raising the children and for taking care of the woman finanacially all of her life. Her sons were to take care of her after the death of their father.

Now enter the desire of homosexuals to have all the rights and privledges of married couples.

The group of Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin are opposed to marriage for same-sex couples for a different reason than being given so far.
Because of the bluring of civil marriagae ceremonies and the religious ceremonies as long as the minsister has a license means that if same sex couples get married by a judge, it will be a matter of time before it will be commonplace in the church as well.

So the main opposiiton is that the fundie Christians fear that in time same-sex ceremonies will be religious as well.

There are two options as I see it. One would be for all civil and legal marriages concluded at the courthouse and let the public wedding be what it is a big religious and/or social event. A "ceremony" would not be required for the marriage to be legal.

The second option is to provide legal recgnition of the the same sex union.

If we call same sex unions marriage, the converative side says we will need to designate one as the husband and one as the wife. As in marrrige those are the terms that are used. Marriage results in a hsuband and wife.

One option would to legally use the term civil union with two spouses regardless whether it is same sex of opposite sex couple and let the term "marriage" strickly be a non legal, but a religious term. Personally I like that concept. Will it work? Not a chance in hell.

Another concept is to use the term civil union for same sex couples and both partners be refered to as spouses.and mariage for opposite sex couples. The rationale here would be that we have terms like husband, wife, Mr. Mrs. Ms. etc. And we have the pronoun he for men and she for women. Under this concept, the marriage and civil union would be indestinguishable when it comes to legal rights and responsibiities. They would be itendital.

Of course the most liberal want to use the term marriage for both same sex and oppsite sex couples. I think that we still would have the problem of what to call the same sex partners: spouses or one husband and one wife.

Of course the fundies want to stop time. By the definition of fundamentalism, that makes it so. Fundamentalists want all cultural aspects to be just like they were when... and then it depends on the fundie which society in the past he or she wants to return to.

Time can't be stopped. Change is going to happen. Oh we can have a small group here and there. But our American culure has had a society that has added equal rights to groups consistantly. First to get rights were the white men who owned land, then other white men who could read and write, then black men ins some areas of the country, then women, then the American Indian. Then finally all black people in the whole country. The process isn't complete yet and I dont' think anyone can hold back the progress of our country toward equal rihts for all.

I tried to explain the other side without bias. I tried to present that side as I have been told. I saw no reason to hide what I believed as as long as I said that it was my opinion.

Much more could be written, but this post is long enough as it is.

 

[GottaBigOne]

I think Freddie hit it on the nose when he said the best solution would be have civil unions for all in the legal secular field and leave marriage for the religious. The government is restricted by the first ammendment and should not be in the business of making legal any religious practices (they should not make it illegal either)
The main thing that creates this argument is that some religious people don't agree with the seperation of curch and state because they don't recognize the state as being the highest power in the land, they believe god is and that his law should be practised by all. Freddie postulated that some conservatives are afraid that if gay marriage is made legal then it will creep into the church. This is nonsense, but they fear it. They aren't afraid that the government will start making their church recognize gay marriage, they are afraid of independant churches making their own decisions on wether or not to recognize them, they are trying to limit the freedom of religion, because they want their religion to be tops.
If the government only recognizes heterosexual marriages then it is establishing in a legal sense that certain religions are more acceptable than others. The argument that marriage should be between a man and a woman because it protects children and the woman is outdated and does not hold water in these times, the woman has her own rights without a husband and same-sex parents have not been shown to harm children. So it all boils down to religious people wanting their religious laws to become REAL laws. Should we also make it a law to have no gods before the Christian God? SHould we make it illegla to work on the sabbath? Oh yeah, many christians have tried to make it illegal to have movie theaters open on sundays, and its still illegal to buy alcohol before noon on sunday.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jul 8 2005, 11:53 AM
I think Freddie hit it on the nose when he said the best solution would be have civil unions for all in the legal secular field and leave marriage for the religious. The government is restricted by the first ammendment and should not be in the business of making legal any religious practices (they should not make it illegal either)

[post=327649]Quoted post[/post]​

Thanks for your using my comments are embellishing them. I agree with what you said.

I have the greatest admiration for you. You are not religious. I am. Yet we both go out of our way to protect the right of each to practice what we as individuals believe without putting each other. You have a great grasp of what the Founders really meant. I wish all people understood the who the Founders really were and what they believed.

Most of the Founding Fathers were deiest, not traditional Christians. They believed that there was a God who created the world and then left it along to develop on its own without his intervention. They did have an abiding faith in God. Some even recognized the deity of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson did not. He wrote a copy of the Gospels with references to miracles taken out. He was very freedom of religion though. And he had a very deep faith in God. It just wasn't the type of religion that the fundie's have.

The fundie's preach that we need to return to the faith of the Founder's. Either they don't know what the Founder's believed or they are using propaganda.

Don't get me wrong. There were literalist Christians during Revolutionary times. But the majority of the Founders - that is leaders of the Revolution and the writiers of our Consittuion were not even close to being fundie.

The King's Church, the Church of England or the Anglican Church was the dominate church is several of the colonies. Truth is 1/3 of the colonists were oppposed to the Revolution and supported the King. Many of them moved to Canada reducing greatly the membership of the King's Church. The Methodist Church was specifically organized for former members of the King's Church who did not want to be in a church with King George as its head. Originally the doctrines of the two churches were almost identical. Through the years changes of course happen and the two churches are not near as much the same now. In fact for years the name of the Methodist Churh was the Methodist Episcopal Church and the name of the Anglican church here in the U.S. is still Protestant Episcopal Church. Today the United Methodist Church is a merger of several Methodist and similar denominations including the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Traditional or what we call mainline Christians were all over the place during the Revolution. However, Fundie Christians were a rare breed then.

 

[absinthium]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Jul 8 2005, 11:15 AM
Julianna. God loves you. Jesus loves you. All God every wanted was to be in communion with his children. God welcomes everyone into his house, everyone. That pasor was just blowing smoke. I am sure he meant well and truly believed what he was saying. I believe he was wrong, terribably wrong.

So Juliana, let Jesus speak for himself.

[post=327632]Quoted post[/post]​

Please don't misinterpret... I respect all religions a great deal, and I believe Jesus was a great person who is largely misunderstood by the very people who claim to love him so dearly and carry on war, etc., in his name today. It was the church I had a problem with, and I did make that distinction in my mind. I also respect Christians and anyone who seriously practices any faith. I don't like it when any religion is used as a foundation for hate, because, if you look at the big picture, most of them endorse only love and understanding.
For many reasons, I cannot fully buy into any particular religion, but I believe they all have beautiful things to teach us, as well as some things I don't agree with. I believe in what makes sense to me, and that's that in a nutshell.

I appreciate what you said very much, Freddie. People like you restore my faith in humanity. I wish more folks could share your understanding, gentle spirit.

 

[Steve26]

I am married and do not find any of the standard anti-gay marriage arguments to be particularly compelling. I do not feel that my relationship with my wife or the "sanctity" of our marriage is compromised in any way by gay couples who care to marry. In fact, I feel that "the institution of marriage" is strengthened by having as many people as possible (including gays) join in it.

I live in New Hampshire but work in Massachusetts, so I know a fair number of married gay couples. Contrary to the occasional "sky is falling" rhetoric from defenders of traditional marriage, the presence of gay marriages here has not caused any kind of massive societal breakdown, as far as I can discern. The gays I know who have married are deeply, deeply committed to each other, having been together decades in many cases. I suspect that they are on balance more reverent toward marriage and more committed to their vows than the average straight couple, if only because these rights have been so long coming.

If anything, I feel that marriage is cheapened these days primarily by straight couples who treat marriages as disposable. It's individuals like Britney Spears, with her drunken 55-hour marriage, politicians who jump from marriage to marriage, and assorted other B-list celebs who wed for PR purposes whose actions serve to trivialize and mock marriage. With the US divorce rate way up into the double digits, it seems to me that straight couples, not gays, are the ones who need lecturing on the "sanctity" of marriage. (Sorry, fellow straights, but you have to admit that our track record in this regard leaves much to be desired.)

Any kind of anti-gay marriage argument that basically boils down to "this is the way it's always been" doesn't hold any water for me either, as even conservatives would have to agree that societal norms evolve with time. I don't know of anyone who still advocates that woman or blacks are the property of white men, views that are "traditional" in that they were once widespread. Society evolves, and just as most people today would not wish to turn back the clock to the blatant racism and sexism of past decades, it seems arbitrary to decide that we should halt social progress and regress to the values that predominated at some random point in the past -- which is essentially the request of most who argue in our current political climate on behalf of "traditional" values.

Just my two cents' worth ...

Steve

 

[Lex]

I'm a married bi-sexual--so I guess I fall under that argument of "What happens when a bisexual person wants to marry a man AND a woman." At any rate, here are my thoughts (most which closely align with Steve26)

First, The NY Times Magazine did a cover story on the fight against Gay Marriage in the US.
What's Their REAL Problem with Gay Marriage?

Use Bugmenot.com to gain access to the article.

I was raised as a Baptist and can not, for the life of me, reconcile my personal views with what the church teaches. I will not comform to anything I see as discirminatory or exclusionary.

The NY Times Magazine article summarized the religious opposition as thus: Some of the Christian sector do not see homosexuality as a genetically based phenomena, and therefore, don't see it as a civil rights issue, but a moral one.

In the Same Sex America documentary--there was a political rally. On one side was a gay woman; on the other side were her parents. It was fascinating to watch her ask "Did God not make me in His image as well?"

The "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" stance sounds great and all, except that I remember one of my first Sunday School lessons being about how it wasn't/isn't man's place to judge, but rather, God's. There are plenty of other sins that aren't legislated against (my understanding is that there are over 600 sins mentioned in the Bible). Why do we feel so deeply threatened as to need to legislated this one?

I personally remain wary about legislating from a Biblical standpoint when this same Bible has been used throughout history to start wars, constrain women's liberties, and keep slaves from being educated.

One of the crucial reasons America was founded was freedom from religious oppression and persecution. Supposedly, not even a majority opinion should be able to create and sustain legislation that would discriminate against a minority group (think women's suffrage, civil rights, etc). I have no problem with the church not recognizing gay marriage (because one does not HAVE to attend a church) as much as the government doing the same.

Now--can someone please explain to me how allowing gays and lesbians to marry will kill our society? Don't we want to PROMOTE monogamy?

I can agree with the religious premise of helping lead people to do what is "right." Where I am still confounded, however, is how restricting choice helps "lead people to do what is 'right.'" Denying them the right to marry does not mean that they will somehow stop being what and who they are because we (some of us) think it's wrong. I guess the argument can be that "homosexuals can be abstinent and thereby not ever commit the "sin,"' but I don't see how that's fair or reasonable.

If we are "all sinners, born into sin, imperfect as human flesh" (As I recall many sermons)--who gives those of us who don't commit the "sin" of homosexuality (all the while committing other sins) the leverage to point fingers and judge? If we are all sinners-how are those of us who are not homosexual on any higher moral ground than those who are?

Can't a gay person life his/her life in such a way as to be a positive, loving person and a great contributor to society? Can't an adulterer do the same? Where's the difference?

And who determines "right" anyway?

Then there is the "people can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, but BLAH BLAH" See--this is where I don't get it as well. You can't do whatever you wish in the privacy of your own home without intrusion. You can't batter your wife, you can't abuse your children, you can not committ crimes that are otherwise illegal or harmful to others. If the "harmful to others" is the measurig stick, then it the scenario of gay marriage harms no one. This whole argument boils down to "I don't want to see it and deal with it, therefore I will legislate against it." Any government that would seek to (un?)intentionally make outcasts of between 10-15% of its citizens is treading on thin ice, IMO.

I would personally have a gay, married couple with adopted kids living next to me to hold up as an example than a traditionally married couple with tons of dysfunction.

The hard part for me is that I feel like similar arguments were once used against women and minorities (and sometimes still are). And in all cases, I think it's just wrong.

 

[madame_zora]

Freddie, You write beautifully, as always. I am humbled by your understanding of your faith, and as a devout person of that faith you are still not blind to the shortcomings of some of it's followers. That is an important distinction, at least to me. Julianna and I attended a church that was as open as any I've attended, open-denominational even. It wasn't that the pastor wasn't a good man, I think we both have a great deal of respect for him as well as the junior pastor of that church, it was more sublte. There was very little talk of homosexuality there, but what little there was did not promote the concept of acceptance and love. Forgiveness, yes- but it was clearly presumed that homosexuality is sinful, and that is a concept I simply can't and won't buy into. What is sin? Surely someone more qualified than myself will have to decise and judge that, but I know I would not appreciate having my lifestyle (which I DON"T believe is a choice) called sinful if I were homosexual. I would not like to be placed on the same level as murderers, theives and liars because of whom I choose to love- that just doesn't make sense to me. I cannot speak for Jesus, but then neither can anyone else. Jesus had his own time, and many of the things he said were written down (although we'll never know how accurately they were recorded) and that's all we have to go on. I've never read any words attributed to Jesus that condemn homosexuality and I don't care if he was gay, married, celibate for life, or what his choices were. I care that he lived a life in devotion to the wellness of others, that is a beautiful thing no matter how you slice it.

As for the fundies, they are enjoying their time in the sun. Honestly, they bother me far less than the "Christians" who are truly more moderate, but simply DON'T take time to investigate their faith but allow themselves to be herded like cattle into thinking this is what they want with no more than sound bytes and suggestions by religous leaders. This is NOT true faith! You cannot love someone without knowing them, nor can you profess to have a deep and abiding faith in a religion you don't even try to understand. That is false love and flimsy committment. It makes me sick and is doing much to erode the foundations of the church. This is the very stuff Jesus was so adamant about reforming in his own time! Legislation does NOT belong in the hands of the church, any church! The church exists to lead people to God, it should have no interest in affairs of state. Jesus said "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's", obviously he strongly believed in separation of church and state as well, I'll go with that.

Lex and Steve26, thank you both for sharing your views and your literary talents with us, this was a very good read for me! While I can appreciate the arguments we sometimes get into, I find it a comfort beyond measure that on something as important as this, we seem to have very little dischord other than a semantical one.
I don't think even the gay people care much about whether the government calls it "marriage" or "civil union" as long as the rights of both are exactly the same. In my home I will recogise either equally, but then again, I would encourage anyone considering such a union to consider it well, as the "institute of marriage" in itself gives me the willies. Steve, you brought up a very good point, that it is straight people who need to review their own behavior! With the divorce rates being over 60% now, who the HELL are THEY to judge!! Of course, I contributed greatly with my 3 divorces, and I know plenty of multiply-divorced people so I'm sure there are still some lifetime families out there, but I honestly wonder how many. The average length of a marriage is now about five years last I read, so what's so great about THAT track record? The gay people I know who wish to marry have already been together 20+ years! They've already beat the odds, so maybe they've got something to add to the institute of marriage rather than detract. I think we have a lot to learn from each other, and to deny the value of a whole group of people's input is sheer stupidity! Where would we be without the scientific, medical, philosophical input from women and peoples of other nationalities? Jesus himself was not an American, nor was his skin white- would we deny HIS value now? I believe we would, judging from our current cultural climate.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX
I have no problem to civil unions for gays, but I reserve marriage for those with the intent to create and raise children. You're right, it may just be semantics, but I don't see it that way.

This is mostly a gimmick so that politicians can be on both sides of the issue. That having been said, I think it's a compromise gays should be able to live with. Yes, we can change the definition of words if we want, but I think most people care about rights, not semantics.

And BTW around 60% of the nation opposes gay marriage, a number that fluctuates depending on how you word the question, but always a good majority. So any attempt to reduce this to a Christian conservative issue doesn't jive with the numbers. It's simply an issue on how the people of this nation want to define the institution of marriage.

 

[madame_zora]

While I'm sure that's true, I'm equally sure that those same numbers could have been found in times before women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks, and issues like that. Just because people are stupid doesn't mean we should give in to bad thinking. If we have to pull this country into the future kicking and screaming, it will still happen. Progress is a fact of life. I personally will crack up when at some point in the future gays are marrying and sharing rights (It will happen, just a matter of time), because I just KNOW that some church somewhere will be claiming they supported it all along! It's the fraudualism that gets on my nerves.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, I love arguing semantics with you so I'll start another one. You said that the homosexual lifestyle is not a choice, but in fact it is. The propensity to be attracted to the same sex may not be a conscious choice but the acts of homo-sexual sex are, I can not help but be attracted to women, but I do CHOOSE to fuck them every now and then. Sure, it would be hard to make the choice not to fuck them, but it is a still a choice. I hate to equate homosexuality with murder but this will illustrate my point: A person may have a very strong urge to commit murder (believe me, I have. When I see stupid people on the subway platform, I can't help but think that with a little push I could do some major damage) and the urge to kill is not a crime, the choice, the act of murder is. I myslef don't believe that homo-sexual acts are sinful, but to the fundies they are, and since engaging in those acts to them are sins, then its a question of morality. Sometimes gaining a deeper understanding of your enemies will help in the fight against them. They don't hate gays because they are attracted to the same sex, they hate them because they believe they are disobeying god's laws. And the ban on homosexual acts can be found in the bible even if it is in leviticus and didnt come out of jesus' mouth. In Jesus' time homosexuality was most likely not that out in the open so maybe thats why he never spoke about it, he never mentioned slavery either, and slavery is condoned by the "OT God"

Chimera, you said that you would reserve the right to marry to those who intend to create and raise children. SO then you wouldn't extened those rights to those heteros that don't intend to create children or for some reason aren't able to concieve?
What about those gays that DO INTEND to adopt and raise children? Why can't they get married?

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne
I myslef don't believe that homo-sexual acts are sinful, but to the fundies they are, and since engaging in those acts to them are sins, then its a question of morality. They don't hate gays because they are attracted to the same sex, they hate them because they believe they are disobeying god's laws.

I don't have a problem with anyone's religious beliefs, but it disgusts me when people try to pretend it's something it's not. Just come out and say "I don't like homosexuality, ...and the Bible also says it's wrong." Nobody wants to admit that shit because the Bible says at least 1000 things are wrong that so-called Christians do every fucking day. None of them want the government passing any Bible-influenced laws that would hinder their daily life of gluttony, premarital sex and hedonism, but when it comes to gays, then all of a sudden the Bible is "the word of God." Please.

 

[amethyst]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Jul 7 2005, 08:17 AM
This may be an odd request, and beating the dead horse, but here goes.

I want to delve again into the issue of same-gender marriage, and get some views and intelligent debate. Liberals/supporters, please hold off on the replies for a bit, I want to get some anti views first. What is/are your main objection(s) to persons of the same gender having the legal right to marry? Only well-presented replies, please - no tirades.

[post=327343]Quoted post[/post]​

I like the discussion this post has produced. I am conservative and religious, and always interested in giving my opinion .

DC Deep, to answer your original question about objections to gay marriage. I support the idea of gay marriage, in most aspects, but there is one part of it that makes me hesitant...and that comes with the issue of children. There are benefits to raising children in a home where the parents are of opposite gender. I believe that children need the influence of both men and women in their direct, day to day upbringing. Part of me thinks that this can be compensated for in other ways, because children can have many influences, and part of me wonders how hard it would be on the kids. But, then again, we all have our challenges in life, and all of our challenges are different. The most important thing is that we are loved, and taught to love. Some of the rest of it we can sort out as adults. I am interested on other's thoughts on this point.

Overall, I do not believe this is a religious issue, but a sociatal issue. There are many who do not agree with homosexuality, from a religious standpoint, but also have objections from a 'is this good for society' standpoint. This is a tough issue...and I thank you, DC Deep, for seeking understanding for opposing viewpoints so we can all learn from each other.

Frankly, I think the 'gay movement' shot themselves in the foot on the marriage issue. I am not saying that gay people shot themselves in the foot, I think the movement did. If the gay movement did not leave such a bitter taste in many of our mouths, this issue may not be quite as much of a sticking point. Being homosexual is not the "norm" in society. That does not make it wrong, of course, but it is not a high percentage of the population. Many of us who are heterosexual have been left with the impression that we should accept homosexuality to the point that it should get special consideration. Homosexuality is an anomalous aspect of the human race. We could not survive as a race if everyone was homosexual, that is what makes it an anomoly. But that doesn't mean that people who are homosexuals are not important, and that doesn't mean that it isn't part of society, it is! All of us are important, regardless of our anomolies. I have a brain chemical imbalance that causes ADHD and anxiety. That is also an anomoly. So, I think that homosexuality should be an accepted part of society. No problemo. But the gay movement attitude took it too far. I also think the feminist movement attitude took that issue too far. Equal rights is good, let's not take our need to feel important to the point that we have to dominate.

Personally, on this issue, I agree everyone has the same rights, regardless of sexuality, etc. And I believe that gay marriage is an equal rights issue. However, I think it would really help the equal rights movement if gay marriage was presented as a 'love' and 'life' issue, because that will help people see the equal rights part of it with a little less resistance. Most of the male or female couples that want to get married have the same desire in their hearts as a heterosexual couple...to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives. Heterosexuals understand that. If they have trouble getting past the 'attraction/sexuality' part of it, for whatever reason, they understand that kind of love and desire and, when that reality hits an emotional level in their heart, they will have an easier time seeing the 'rights' part of it. How can you deny anyone that opportunity? Well, that's how it worked for me, anyway.


So, in addition to the equal rights part of it, my societal view is that letting all persons who want to commit to a life together strengthens the idea of a family unit, regardless of the sexuality of the persons involved. I think ideas of committment and the family unit is very important to the health of our society. I would even be willing to call it a marriage, regardless of whether the union has a religious aspect to it, because I believe a marriage is the day to day work and committment required to make it work. Any married relationship is going to require that.

I still do worry about the children part, though. Any thoughts?

Amethyst

 

[Freddie53]

Thanks to Juliana, DC, GotaBigOne and Jana for your kind words about what I have written. That means a lot to me.

And I am very proud of several of the posts. Excellent comments.

DC, I hope that these last threads have given you what you were lookiing for.

After all I have read, I have come to the conclusion that all marriages, civil unions or whatever they are called should be the same for both same gender and opposite gender unions.

I have also come to the conclusion that the union should be legally finalized at the courthouse with religious or social ceremonies being optional and follow the state recognition of the union. With this plan, the couple would sign the union contract. There would be no state oral ceremony at all. And recitation of vows would be a social or religious event and not a legal one.

That would take the church out of the business of legal unions of any kind. Each individual church, synogue, mosque or temple could choose whether to sanction each union with a religious ceremony.

I know I mentioned this earlier. But I am more convinced now. Let the state legalize all unions. Let the each individual house of worship decide whether to bless those unions or not.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 8 2005, 10:26 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 8 2005, 10:26 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@Jul 8 2005, 05:27 AM
faceking and chimera, goddammit, just ignore the stupid shit and answer my fucking question please, ok?  This is exactly the kind of shit I was hoping to sidestep before page two, when I posed my original post the way I did.  Thank you.

[post=327578]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;m sorry about that, but we didn&#39;t exactly start that. I&#39;m just digressing more though, so I&#39;ll answer your question.

I have no problem to civil unions for gays, but I reserve marriage for those with the intent to create and raise children. You&#39;re right, it may just be semantics, but I don&#39;t see it that way.

[post=327759]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Thank you, Chimera... but you do realize that some heterosexual couples marry with no intention of ever having children. If marriage is reserved for creating and raising children, how do you handle the childless couples? Would that not make them in violation of at least the intent of the law?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Jul 9 2005, 12:39 AM
This is mostly a gimmick so that politicians can be on both sides of the issue. That having been said, I think it&#39;s a compromise gays should be able to live with. Yes, we can change the definition of words if we want, but I think most people care about rights, not semantics.

And BTW around 60% of the nation opposes gay marriage, a number that fluctuates depending on how you word the question, but always a good majority. So any attempt to reduce this to a Christian conservative issue doesn&#39;t jive with the numbers. It&#39;s simply an issue on how the people of this nation want to define the institution of marriage.

[post=327789]Quoted post[/post]​

HELL, NO&#33;&#33;&#33; I want MARRIAGE&#33;&#33;&#33; If the breeders want their sanctified relationship to have a different name than mine, they can change theirs to "fecundity union&#33;"

Just kidding, of course&#33; Dr, you probably have no idea just how true your first paragraph here is. It IS, of course, the rights that most of us are interested in, and the tax breaks, and the estate/property disposition, all this good stuff. The big problem is, even where some states are giving "union equality", many of the laws are written specifically to defeat any of these attempts, and are backed up by the ridiculous DOMA.

Virginia just recently (knee-jerk, of course) passed one of the strictest anti-gay rights law ever. And the knee-jerk reaction in which they drafted and passed it didn&#39;t give them time to truly consider the wording or the consequences. Without quoting the entire text, it basically says that any type of contract between any two people of the same gender is not legally binding in Virginia. What they didn&#39;t really think about at the time is, two brothers or two sisters are of the same gender, but may not enter into a business agreement to, say, open a knitting shop or a golf pro shop.

 

[DC_DEEP]

You said that the homosexual lifestyle is not a choice, but in fact it is...
Sometimes gaining a deeper understanding of your enemies will help in the fight against them. They don&#39;t hate gays because they are attracted to the same sex, they hate them because they believe they are disobeying god&#39;s laws. And the ban on homosexual acts can be found in the bible even if it is in leviticus and didnt come out of jesus&#39; mouth....
Chimera, you said that you would reserve the right to marry to those who intend to create and raise children. SO then you wouldn&#39;t extened those rights to those heteros that don&#39;t intend to create children or for some reason aren&#39;t able to concieve?
What about those gays that DO INTEND to adopt and raise children? Why can&#39;t they get married?

[post=327804]Quoted post[/post]​

Most people only know my sexual orientation because I tell them or make it known (such as holding hands with my partner). The only real difference between my "lifestyle" and the lifestyle of your average, ordinary hetero-person-in-a-relationship happens between the sheets. I have not given any of the fundies any details, so they must spend an awful lot of time imagining what my sex life consists of. If they find it so repugnant, why would they spend so much time fantasizing about MY sex life? I have addressed the "children" issue at least twice already, but everyone seems to ignore that. And as far as Leviticus goes, I think it is obscene and blasphemous to simply choose a couple of the laws and ignore the rest. Some fundies will tell you that jesus cancelled the Mosiac laws, but they will never tell you where jesus spells out which ones he cancelled and which ones he left in place. I just want to slap someone who quotes Leviticus to me to justify their hatred of homosexuals, but who does not send the women outside the city wall (city limits) during her menstrual periods.

I like the discussion this post has produced. I am conservative and religious, and always interested in giving my opinion .

I support the idea of gay marriage, in most aspects, but there is one part of it that makes me hesitant...and that comes with the issue of children. There are benefits to raising children in a home where the parents are of opposite gender. I believe that children need the influence of both men and women in their direct, day to day upbringing. Part of me thinks that this can be compensated for in other ways, because children can have many influences, and part of me wonders how hard it would be on the kids. But, then again, we all have our challenges in life, and all of our challenges are different. The most important thing is that we are loved, and taught to love. Some of the rest of it we can sort out as adults. I am interested on other&#39;s thoughts on this point.

Overall, I do not believe this is a religious issue, but a sociatal issue. There are many who do not agree with homosexuality, from a religious standpoint, but also have objections from a &#39;is this good for society&#39; standpoint. This is a tough issue...and I thank you, DC Deep, for seeking understanding for opposing viewpoints so we can all learn from each other.

Frankly, I think the &#39;gay movement&#39; shot themselves in the foot on the marriage issue. I am not saying that gay people shot themselves in the foot, I think the movement did. If the gay movement did not leave such a bitter taste in many of our mouths, this issue may not be quite as much of a sticking point. Being homosexual is not the "norm" in society. That does not make it wrong, of course, but it is not a high percentage of the population. Many of us who are heterosexual have been left with the impression that we should accept homosexuality to the point that it should get special consideration. Homosexuality is an anomalous aspect of the human race. We could not survive as a race if everyone was homosexual, that is what makes it an anomoly. But that doesn&#39;t mean that people who are homosexuals are not important, and that doesn&#39;t mean that it isn&#39;t part of society, it is&#33; All of us are important, regardless of our anomolies. I have a brain chemical imbalance that causes ADHD and anxiety. That is also an anomoly. So, I think that homosexuality should be an accepted part of society. No problemo. But the gay movement attitude took it too far. I also think the feminist movement attitude took that issue too far. Equal rights is good, let&#39;s not take our need to feel important to the point that we have to dominate.

Personally, on this issue, I agree everyone has the same rights, regardless of sexuality, etc. And I believe that gay marriage is an equal rights issue. However, I think it would really help the equal rights movement if gay marriage was presented as a &#39;love&#39; and &#39;life&#39; issue, because that will help people see the equal rights part of it with a little less resistance. Most of the male or female couples that want to get married have the same desire in their hearts as a heterosexual couple...to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives. Heterosexuals understand that. If they have trouble getting past the &#39;attraction/sexuality&#39; part of it, for whatever reason, they understand that kind of love and desire and, when that reality hits an emotional level in their heart, they will have an easier time seeing the &#39;rights&#39; part of it. How can you deny anyone that opportunity? Well, that&#39;s how it worked for me, anyway.

So, in addition to the equal rights part of it, my societal view is that letting all persons who want to commit to a life together strengthens the idea of a family unit, regardless of the sexuality of the persons involved. I think ideas of committment and the family unit is very important to the health of our society. I would even be willing to call it a marriage, regardless of whether the union has a religious aspect to it, because I believe a marriage is the day to day work and committment required to make it work. Any married relationship is going to require that.

I still do worry about the children part, though. Any thoughts?

Amethyst

[post=327814]Quoted post[/post]​

Amethyst, after my Mom divorced, back in the late 1960s when it was just unthinkable, she raised (fairly well, I think) the remaining five children in her home (one just finished college) all by herself, with just a high school education, and little job experience. Of course having a Mom and Dad is IDEAL, but how many ideal families are there these days? Would having two very loving and devoted Moms or Dads be THAT much worse than having JUST ONE very loving devoted parent? That certainly cannot be used as an excuse to deny someone their rights. As for taking it to the extreme, look at this Bloch fellow who is in the news so much lately. Looks like it is going to take an act of congress to make him do his job, which is to enforce equality in the federal workplace. He has publicly state, however, that he will do NOTHING to protect homosexuals from being fired simply because they are homosexuals. There are some who would say this protection is a special right. Hmmm....

Thanks to Juliana, DC, GotaBigOne and Jana for your kind words about what I have written. That means a lot to me.

And I am very proud of several of the posts. Excellent comments.

DC, I hope that these last threads have given you what you were lookiing for.

After all I have read, I have come to the conclusion that all marriages, civil unions or whatever they are called should be the same for both same gender and opposite gender unions.

I have also come to the conclusion that the union should be legally finalized at the courthouse with religious or social ceremonies being optional and follow the state recognition of the union. With this plan, the couple would sign the union contract. There would be no state oral ceremony at all. And recitation of vows would be a social or religious event and not a legal one.

That would take the church out of the business of legal unions of any kind. Each individual church, synogue, mosque or temple could choose whether to sanction each union with a religious ceremony.

I know I mentioned this earlier. But I am more convinced now. Let the state legalize all unions. Let the each individual house of worship decide whether to bless those unions or not.

[post=327830]Quoted post[/post]​

Thank you, Freddie. What I have really hoped to do is dissect some of the rhetoric, point out to some people that logically, their issues don&#39;t stand up, and that, while entitled to have their opinions, those opinions really should not be binding upon everyone. And believe it or not, I am trying to see if there are any points which change MY understanding of the issue. So far, mostly what I am seeing is "I&#39;ve always been taught that it is wrong, I still believe it is wrong, so I must make up your mind for you, and make sure that you and your consenting adult partner don&#39;t do something I don&#39;t believe in."

Freddie, you have singlehandedly changed my opinion of the faithful. I still have hope for our nation.

 

[steve319]

Well, I think we should have a separate and distinct name for each and every possible configuration. Sure, we can keep "marriage" for different-sex couples who plan to have children and have proven themselves fertile enough, but I think we should have something called "commitmentary" for those who don&#39;t want kids. And "unity unions" for those who want them but can&#39;t have them and must adopt. Maybe reserve "twosometary" for gay couples who don&#39;t plan to adopt. I&#39;m torn about whether to use "love-binding" for gay couples who want to adopt or for just those of either group who are undecided. Clearly, having a bunch of terms for every possible permutation is the way to go. I mean, we don&#39;t label one another or accept restrictions and limitations on ourselves nearly often enough, in my opinion.

"Hey, I want you guys to come to our togetherlibound ceremony in June&#33; We&#39;re finally making it official&#33;"

Isn&#39;t that just as silly as this whole "Mega-Marriage" thing or whatever its called that some groups are pushing these days? What is it again?

Actually, to be honest, I&#39;m for pretty much anything that will encourage couples to be faithful to one another and to commit to raising their children in a positive and loving environment, whether we call it "marriage" or "union" or "asparagus."

And as for the role of "the church" (as if there were only one ), well, that&#39;s a denominational decision, I guess. Wasn&#39;t the initial intent of church-sanctioned "marriage" just to scare us irresponsible, lazy men into doing what&#39;s right and caring for the economically helpless women and children of centures past?

 

[Steve26]

The argument equating marriage with childrearing is spurious, if not disingenuous. My wife and I are unsure whether we will decide to have children (largely for health reasons -- she is diabetic so pregnancy would be risky); does this mean that we don&#39;t deserve to be married? How about people who are infertile, or those who are beyond the age of childbearing -- should they be barred from marrying? Would you deny my diabetic wife and I our marriage, or my 80-year-old grandmother her remarriage after the death of my grandfather?

Steve

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jul 9 2005, 05:30 AM
Madam, I love arguing semantics with you so I&#39;ll start another one. You said that the homosexual lifestyle is not a choice, but in fact it is. The propensity to be attracted to the same sex may not be a conscious choice but the acts of homo-sexual sex are, I can not help but be attracted to women, but I do CHOOSE to fuck them every now and then. Sure, it would be hard to make the choice not to fuck them, but it is a still a choice. I hate to equate homosexuality with murder but this will illustrate my point: A person may have a very strong urge to commit murder (believe me, I have. When I see stupid people on the subway platform, I can&#39;t help but think that with a little push I could do some major damage) and the urge to kill is not a crime, the choice, the act of murder is. I myslef don&#39;t believe that homo-sexual acts are sinful, but to the fundies they are, and since engaging in those acts to them are sins, then its a question of morality. Sometimes gaining a deeper understanding of your enemies will help in the fight against them. They don&#39;t hate gays because they are attracted to the same sex, they hate them because they believe they are disobeying god&#39;s laws. And the ban on homosexual acts can be found in the bible even if it is in leviticus and didnt come out of jesus&#39; mouth. In Jesus&#39; time homosexuality was most likely not that out in the open so maybe thats why he never spoke about it, he never mentioned slavery either, and slavery is condoned by the OT god.

[post=327804]Quoted post[/post]​

GBO, you can argue anything you like with me if you just keeping looking at me with that face...

Yes, I am aware of the difference between feelings and actions, and the perception of the fundies in regards to said. Personally, there is no way I can accept that 10 to 15 percent of the population should be confined to a life of celibacy based on the fact that they are attracted to the same gender. I realise YOU are also not supporting these beliefs, but here&#39;s why I dismiss this argument (for myself, I&#39;ll gladly have it with you, if you like). Celibacy is a "gift" referred to in the Bible, not something that should be assumed any person is capable of. It is ludicrous to assume that all people who are "cursed" with feelings of homosexuality would be then also "blessed" with the gift of celibacy. Truly, many who devote their life to service to God discover that they do not have this "gift", so it would be absurd to think your average sinner walking down the pike would have it if indeed many who are priests do not.

I have an impossible time accepting arguments of non-reality. In my own life, staying as firmly planted in the truth as possible has kept me sober, something for which I am entirely grateful. I don&#39;t separate people&#39;s sexual identity from their sexual behavior, I think people who do this are bigger fools for that than for some of their Biblical literlism. I do UNDERSTAND that their gripe is with ass-fucking, not feelings, but I DON&#39;T accept their solution of lifelong abstinence as a viable solution. Indeed, if even teens are not benefitting from "just say no" as proven by all statistics on teen preganacy, then it&#39;s not a realistic solution to offer it as the only acceptable solution for adults. It doesn&#39;t matter how good a solution you come up with if nobody&#39;s going to use it&#33;

So, okay, you called me onto the carpet for semantics, and I know how to say what I mean, so let me try again. In my opinion, Homosexual urges are not a choice any more than heterosexual ones are, and extremely few people are capable of celibacy. This means gay people are being shunned for not being able to resist the urge to have sex, even though straight people are not strong enough either, but by nature of their birth they feel themselves superior. Paul offered marriage only as a poor solution to the much preferable state of celibacy and charged all men to take up this yoke. "It is best that you remain single, like me, but if they cannot control themselves, it is better that you marry than to burn with lust", this is from the NIV, Paul&#39;s letter to the Corinthians. He makes clear that sex, even within the context of marriage is necessary to keep the weak from being tempted away by Satan&#33; This (in MY opinion) is an ugly concept of what sex can be and is one of the MANY things I find objectionable about Paul. As you know by now, I do not accept the words of anyone other than Jesus to be any more relevant than the words of anyone else, including you or I. I also do not have very great faith that the words of Jesus have been transcribed with perfect accuracy, but I certainly don&#39;t give any credence to the rantings of a madman (Paul). Yeah, he goes on to rant about all the sexually immoral things going on and how everyone is going to be seperated from God, then he says no human should judge, lest they themselves be judged&#33; Pot-kettle-Christ, I get so sick of this man&#33;

To summaraize, while I understand their objections, I object to their objections&#33; For me to treat their suggested solution as if it had merit would violate by belief in reality, a cornerstone on which I&#39;ve built my life. This I won&#39;t do, especially not for people whose ideoligies I consider insane. From a psychological standpoint, forced celibacy coupled with guilt would more likely lead to acts of rape and molestation, even self abuse (anyone, PLEASE feel free to argue with me on THIS point, I have ammo&#33, than healthy, consentual homosexual relationships. The Bible has some fucked up concepts in it and the solutions offered only serve to fuck things up worse. So I am back at square one re-explaing and defending my choice not to take the words of anyone other than Jesus as gospel. Some random letter some guy wrote making it to be included and bound into the "bible" at the time the council sat does not make it "truth" to me.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 8 2005, 06:26 PM
I have no problem to civil unions for gays, but I reserve marriage for those with the intent to create and raise children. You&#39;re right, it may just be semantics, but I don&#39;t see it that way.

[post=327759]Quoted post[/post]​

Um, dinks?

Marriage has historically and cross-culturally primarily existed for the purpose of forming alliances between families. Capitalism, with its focus on the individual, changed that, except for the upper class.

Within the domain of Western law in particular, the first change was during the Enlightenment when they argued marriages shouldn&#39;t be forced. Then in the 1860s women got property rights and that also changed the definition of marriage. Even in the early days of Christianity, the Church redefined marriage by outlawing polygamy to conform to Greco-Roman norms.

Actually, come to think of it, these changes were far more drastic than just changing the genders involved.