Not judging, just curious

[melimcn]

ITA!! And don't even go there!! I am not a homophobe -- just ask one of my oldest and dearest friends who happens to be gay, and yes, he also happens to support my view on gay marriage.

You can't assume that people with strong religious beliefs hate gays or are prejudiced against them. I heartily support CIVIL unions, just not "marriage" which IS a religious service.

I think the problem that stands today is that marriage is not just a religious service. Thus the need to get a marriage license from your county, and why people can go to city hall and get "married" by a judge (who took his oath on a Bible, and the cirlce continues!).
And so the argument tends to be which side you look towards - the legal side or the religious side.

I'm not sure that this topic will ever have a resolution. But I really hope, for the sake of gay couples everywhere, that we can eventuallly extend them the identical rights that married couples benefit from today.

 

[LeanneM]

I think marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. If we re-define the word as between anyone, who's to say marriage can't be between a man and a goat. Or a woman and a four year old. Or a man and five women.

I don't care if gays want to be a couple. If they want a monogamous relationship, wonderful. But I don't believe it is a marriage, as defined religiously (yes, religiously) AND historically.

I'm honestly completely shocked by the first paragraph. You are comparing homosexuality to bestiality, which just goes to show what some people think of homosexuality. Really??

Yes, times change, and it's very sad to me that people's intolerance and hatred won't allow other adults (not children, not animals) to marry. You know, one of the things that angers me the most about hiding between the cloak of religion to make anti-gay-marriage arguments is that many religions in the not-too-distant past also supported segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.

This is not a moral or ethical issue; this is a human rights issue for those affected by it.

 

[sparrow13]

Well, the way I feel about it is this: as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a contract. Therefore, IMO, the state has absolutely no right to tell two consenting adults that they cannot enter into an otherwise legal contract with each other because of their genders. Religious organizations are free to do what they want, but the state has no business defining marriage, IMO.

As for people marrying goats and children, goats and children can't legally consent to be married, so it's not the same thing.

Sparrow

 

[LaughingWater]

I left the Catholic Church years ago, yet I'm still considered married.

I hope.

 

[materialsgirl]

 

[teddy16410]

If the primary issue for those who oppose gay marriage is biblical (which is what Ive heard & read) then I guess I am scratching my head.

Isnt that making an assumption that all Americans believe in & use the Bible as their basis of beliefs? What about all the Americans who are married and have no belief system in the bible? Are they now to be excluded from "marriage" as well?

What makes "marriage" religious? Dont all beliefs have ceremonies that we call marriage?

I respect those that have a belief in Bible & "marriage" as its referenced in the bible However I must say I'm thouroughly confused why all of the sudden the only people who get to be "marrried" are those with Bible based beliefs. - Of course thats NOT how it actually works but isnt that what the Bible/Marriage - anti gay marriage voices are saying?

I suppose my marriage to my DH is not really considered a marriage to some because we were married in Mexico & just had the couthouse here make it "official" for the states... We did not say or do anything that was considered religious at our American Courthouse.

Just questioning how far we take the marriage is bible based ideaology

 

[Miss Lee]

I guess my issue, which I stand firm on, is the way people of religion are demonized for their beliefs. Are we to be hypocrites? I believe in the Word of God. Once that decision was made I cannot now pick and choose which part of His word I will take to heart. I don't know why the bible instructs us against homosexual relations -- it's something I'll ask God when I get to heaven -- but my deeply rooted religious beliefs have not turned me into a hate monger. I do not hate or fear gays, and I have NEVER been forced or threatened by my church to vote a certain way.

Maybe some of you who preach about acceptance need to look within yourselves a little bit and face some of your own prejudices.

I am officially done with this thread. and you can keep your popcorn -- this is one movie I don't want to see.

 

[cindi1]

I don't think the intent was to compare Homosexuality to pedophilia or beastiality. The point is that in many groups - "Marriage" is strictly defined as a union between a man and a woman. Some believe that if you waive on the definition in any way, then it loses its meaning entirely. Someday I believe people will want to marry robots (like Commander Data!).

Things would be a lot better (IMO) if the rules of marriage were left to the churches, and the rules of 'civil union' and domestic partner rights (and adoption) were left to government.

Some cultures actually define more than 2 genders, which I think is interesting since 'man' and 'woman' seem pretty black and white, but when you get into the genetics and biology behind it, it's more like a continuum - if that makes sense.

 

[LauraMax]

Well, I don't want anyone to think I'm throwing stones at religion. I do love Bill Maher, but this is one point with which I don't agree w/him. I have kind of a unique perspective, being half Jew & half Christian, & also a psuedo-historian. I've seen religion do lots & lots of really bad things, but also tons of really good things too.

I just wish our govmt could stick to the First Amendment. Protect civil society from religion, & protect religion from civil society. That said, religion is sort of the basis of our country, & we have to find a way for religion & law to co-exist without both sides hating each other.

Oh crap, I sound so conciliatory, I must stop before I ruin my reputation.

ETA: did you know the bible doesn't say a word about lesbianism? It says sex betw. men is an abomination, but is silent about women. Saw it on the history channel last night (I know, I'm a dweeb). The show was "Sex in the Bible." It was really quite fascinating.

 

[teddy16410]

I guess my issue, which I stand firm on, is the way people of religion are demonized for their beliefs. Are we to be hypocrites? I believe in the Word of God. Once that decision was made I cannot now pick and choose which part of His word I will take to heart. I don't know why the bible instructs us against homosexual relations -- it's something I'll ask God when I get to heaven -- but my deeply rooted religious beliefs have not turned me into a hate monger. I do not hate or fear gays, and I have NEVER been forced or threatened by my church to vote a certain way.

I totally respect your religious beliefs as well as ALL religious beliefs. I dont personally demonize anyone for their their beliefs... I think the OP & most of us responding are just opening this up to try & learn WHY we all feel strongly one way or another.
I just don't think that with an America that is accepting and open to ALL beliefs that we can make the Bible the way we set laws. ~ I do hope the discussion stays civil (as I think it has) ...Its a fascinating topic

 

[Vee]

I think marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. If we re-define the word as between anyone, who's to say marriage can't be between a man and a goat. Or a woman and a four year old. Or a man and five women.

I don't care if gays want to be a couple. If they want a monogamous relationship, wonderful. But I don't believe it is a marriage, as defined religiously (yes, religiously) AND historically.

JMHO. I'm not throwing any stones and hope to not get hit by any in return.

Robin,

I see your point of view.

Except, some people see marriage as social, or legal, or even scared but not belonging to any religion.

I was raised to believe in all religions although I was born to a Hindu family. In my extended family, people are married to Christians, Muslims, Jews and numerous sub-sects of Hindus. The nuns at the Catholic school I went to, welcomed me at mass. But I know there are places of worship where I am not welcome unless I pick a particular religion and stick with it. I would never wish to offend the people who worship there by coming to their place of worship.

Marriage as interpreted by some religious leaders from the holy books, is not permitted between a man and a woman if one of them does not belong to the religion. We have civil marriage for such couples. We have "open", non-denominational ceremonies where if they wish, they can seek some kind of acknowledgement from society and a blessing for their union.

A desire by a couple in love - whether they are homosexual or belong to different religions - to have their union sanctified by society and blessed in some way is something I empathize with. My view is, a gay couple should have avenues to satisfy their need to commit to each other without offending the believers of any faith. If they desire something less business-like than a civil union it seems sad to me if they cannot have it.

 

[Liann]

The post is really not supposed to "start" anything.

Yeah right!!! Take one of the hottest button topics of the day and make it a thread asking people to explain the obviously unpopular side of it and expect to not start something??? By 2 p.m. when we're all grouchy anyways from the mid-day slump, this sucker is going to be blazing!

This is solely a question, not a leading one or anything. Do same sex couples not get benefits in some states? All the places I have worked have always offered the same benefits for civil unions? I always wondered why they couldn't just go and have a wedding anyways and make that commitment without having to have a piece of paper to define their relationship. Unlike what I have seen posted by several others, the only reason I got married officially was religious reasons. If I wasn't a religious person, I would have said the heck with getting a piece of paper from the government that defines my relationship. I don't need a signed contract to show my DH how I feel about him.

 

[LeanneM]

I guess my issue, which I stand firm on, is the way people of religion are demonized for their beliefs. Are we to be hypocrites? I believe in the Word of God. Once that decision was made I cannot now pick and choose which part of His word I will take to heart. I don't know why the bible instructs us against homosexual relations -- it's something I'll ask God when I get to heaven -- but my deeply rooted religious beliefs have not turned me into a hate monger. I do not hate or fear gays, and I have NEVER been forced or threatened by my church to vote a certain way.

Maybe some of you who preach about acceptance need to look within yourselves a little bit and face some of your own prejudices.

Michele and Robin, I sincerely hope you don't think I'm demonizing your views or religious beliefs. I try to be very open-minded and accepting of others whose beliefs are different from my own, which is (ironically) why I have a very hard time accepting anti-gay-marriage beliefs. I think, Michele, you're right that I am prejudiced against certain belief systems, but that is because I believe those belief systems are prejudiced against other people. Does that make any sort of sense? Anyways, I apologize if I came across as judgmental.

 

[buffettgirl]

I guess I see this as a moral issue and NOT as a human rights issue. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Liann]

I dont personally demonize anyone for their their beliefs... I think the OP & most of us responding are just opening this up to try & learn WHY we all feel strongly one way or another.

The problem is that only non-religious viewpoints are respected. When someone tells why they feel strongly about the topic and the reason just happens to be religion, they are immediately put down or discounted. Don't ask for people's personal opinions if you don't want to hear them. (I'm not directing that at any one in particular). When someone offers up a religious view point and you don't agree with it, fine. That's why America is so great. We can voice our opinions and we DO NOT have to agree with each other.

 

[LeanneM]

This is solely a question, not a leading one or anything. Do same sex couples not get benefits in some states? All the places I have worked have always offered to same benefits for civil unions?

Hi Liann -- No, they don't get the same benefits, which is why most gay couples believe that this is a human rights issues. Companies don't have to offer benefits to same-sex partners, and in cases surrounding other matters (like end-of-life issues, etc.), the parter in a relationship has no legal say about what might happen to the other partner.

Vrinda -- Thanks for your really thoughtful post!

 

[Liann]

Hi Liann -- No, they don't get the same benefits, which is why most gay couples believe that this is a human rights issues. Companies don't have to offer benefits to same-sex partners, and in cases surrounding other matters (like end-of-life issues, etc.), the parter in a relationship has no legal say about what might happen to the other partner.

Vrinda -- Thanks for your really thoughtful post!

It sounds like the gov. needs to step it up then with the definition and rights given to those in civil unions in the meantime. You would think we had come far enough for that.

 

[Jaffas]

I believe the purpose of a constitution is to limit the power of government and protect the rights of individuals. Prop 8 does neither.

 

[LaughingWater]

I guess I see this as a moral issue and NOT as a human rights issue. Therein lies the difference.

That's fair. This is why I argue for legal marriage (or whatever the government would like to call it), but I oppose forcing gay marriage on any religious institution that doesn't welcome it.

The moral issue should be a separate argument.

For example, some in my former Church would argue that my decision to raise my children within the Buddhist philosophy is immoral, or that my pro-choice views are immoral (even worse...I've influenced my daughters on the subject), but both are legal in the eyes of the government.

 

[pebblesus]

I think marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. If we re-define the word as between anyone, who's to say marriage can't be between a man and a goat. Or a woman and a four year old. Or a man and five women.

Im sorry to be blunt here.. but that has to be the *dumbest* things Ive ever heard :T

Who's to say that marriage can't be between a man and a goat or a child? - um-- well two homo's CONSENT-- goats and children um-- DO NOT.

Simple.

That statement kindof put gays at the level of a goat and the intelligence of a 4 year old :-\