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

Originally posted by thebtheb
Well doesn't it come down to who is marrying you? Some churches won't marry gay people - that's their right. So as religion goes, it should be up to that particular religion/sect/church if they want to perform the marriage. As government goes, it's up to them to recognize that marriage as legal or not. That's about it. It's pretty simple as far as I can see. I would not like it if the government forced churches to marry gay people. And I am gay. But seriously, it's up to the church if they want to or not. I mean, if they don't, go to a different church - or go online and get one of your friends certified as a minister of whatever frigging church.

All in all though, what escapes me is how few people seem to recognize that marriage is an antiquated practice that is clearly not successful. Over 50% of them end in divorce, and of the 50% left, about half of those SHOULD get divorced but don't because of kids, money, fear. So great for that 25%. Too bad the other 75% never realized that they could have done something different - but society pushes down everyone's throats this ridiculous notion of "the family unit" along with strict definitions of what this means. Finally, nowadays, most single women raising children don't raise too many eyebrows, but there was a time it did.

Think outside of the box. The only reason I'm for gay marriage is so that the people that want it, can have it. Do I need to marry the person I'm in love with. Nooooooo!

Thank you! And the only way the government can define it legally and remain clear of the first amendment would be to recognize all unions as civil unions.

There will be no compromise from me on this point.

The definition of marriage should remain outside of government.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
It won't work - it really won't. One word, one meaning - for everybody

And that should be 'civil unions' for everyone!

Remove the word marriage from government trying to define it and this is a non-issue.

If the word marriage has evolved in the past to mean different things, then let it evolve again outside of the control of government. This is the only way you get what you want.

how about nuptials?

:-)

I think we're done here

but at least we can joke about it

Originally posted by Needalight
The government shouldn't dictate what gay people want to do. That being said though, gays shouldn't (traditionally) marry.

I'll explain why.

Marriage is typically a religious ceremony combined with a legal binding.
If you keep the religious ceremony, like most people [including gays] with the whole preacher setting and all that,
it's a slap to the face for christians. Now, I'm not one, but I can understand the insult they must feel.
THAT'S why gays should ONLY have non-religious weddings,even if they're religious
I'm straight, btw.

Yeah, that doesn't work actually because there are so many different kinds of denominations of Christians, and hate to tell you, but some of them DO marry gays. And some of them have no problem with gays. So it's not a slap in face for all Christians, or all religions.

And Christians also don't own the title of "religion." As I said earlier, you could go and get ordained as a minister for the church of lick my bum on the internet, and you can legally marry people under THAT religion's terms. Still a marriage and doesn't have anything to do with other religions. I agree that no religion should be forced to marry gays if they don't want to. But there are enough others around who WILL marry them that in the end, it DOES come down to government deciding whether they accept it as legal or not.

Originally posted by Needalight
THAT'S why gays should ONLY have non-religious weddings,even if they're religious

According to what religion? Even within a religion there are many beliefs. As I said before, not all of us believe in that narrowminded, cruel God that consider us to be such babies we have to follow a instruction manual to the letter. Its like unwrapping a new remote for a TV you just bought, quickly putting in the batteries and then be struck down by lightning because you didnt read the manual on how to put them in.

In a hypothetical situation where two more open-minded religious people of the same gender want to marry, a priest is more than willing to conduct the seremony and all their religious friends and families wish to come because they dont mind - would you step up and yell "YOU SHALL NOT MARRY BECAUSE YOU ARE RELIGIOUS!!!"?

Originally posted by BioSafe
Its not a Government issue
Its not a religious issue
Its a PERSONNEL issue !

THEN FIRE THEM ALL AND HIRE NEW ONES! Hehe jk

I believe you meant to say personal my friend.

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

It's neither. It's a personal issue that the Gov. and church should not be involved in..

Originally posted by rebellender
are you genuinely woried about someone else having rights

LOL, yes.

The people who hate homosexuality and say they don't care what you do,"just keep it to yourself", have made this a voting issue. There is a good ole boy club. They make the rules. We're not just fighting for rights, we're fighting them. We cannot win. They are deep seated in our country. They promote from within. We can only drop out and let their world crumble without us, their slaves.

What marriage is or is not is a matter of personal faith and belief. If you believe that it only involves a man and a woman, that's your personal belief and there's nothing wrong with that. Conversely, if you believe that members of the same sex can be married, that's also a matter of personal belief and there's nothing wrong with that either.

The issue only becomes a problem when the government steps in. The Constitution provides for a wall of separation between church and state. That means that the government has no business involving itself with matters of religion or faith, and that no consideration for any religion or faith be given when applying the law.

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson said:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

The anti-gay marriage people do not want the government to recognize the marriage of two people of the same sex because they believe that homosexuality is a direct violation of their religious beliefs (handed down by the Bible). The problem with that argument is that it is unconstitutional and illegal for the government to apply or create legislation based on that premise, because it is based on a matter of personal faith. Such a law forbidding gay marriage would clearly be an expression of governmental "opinion" in the matter which, in itself, is unconstitutional. Additionally, creation and application of such a law would create an environment of inequality.

Whether you are for gay marriage or opposed to it, the problem is not with your personal beliefs but the governments handling of the issue. Congress does NOT have the right to set social policy. If you disagree, please read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which explicitly enumerates the powers of Congress. If it's not listed there, Congress does not the power to address it. From a governmental point of view, the consensual contract between two people (previously known as marriage) should be recognized regardless of the sexual orientation of the involved parties. The spiritual and faith-based aspects of that union are individual in nature, and therefore have no place in the eyes of the government.

If people would just read the damn Constitution and apply logic, this whole debate would be a non-issue, and rightfully so. The Bible is an anonymously-authored book filled with allegories and metaphors that 99% of the people who cling to it misinterpret and don't understand. The Constitution, on the other hand, was written by people we can identify, for a purpose we understand, in a direct language devoid of metaphor. Since our nation is based on the Constitution, and not the Bible, I think it makes sense to base the laws of our land on the Constitution, and not the Bible.

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by rebellender
are you genuinely woried about someone else having rights

LOL, yes.

The people who hate homosexuality and say they don't care what you do,"just keep it to yourself", have made this a voting issue. There is a good ole boy club. They make the rules. We're not just fighting for rights, we're fighting them. We cannot win. They are deep seated in our country. They promote from within. We can only drop out and let their world crumble without us, their slaves.

edit on 13-5-2012 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)

Now I want you to think about something very carefully,
.................
.................
are you ready?

I voiced my opinion, yet in the issue, I have absolutely no power....

The fight you cannot win does not come from any body else....the fight you want to win isnt with mankind, its from within you own self.

Mankind cannot give YOU the power to BE anything you are not already.

Now, the issue is only a football, passed to and fro by politicians just as Kali said.

I am not gay, I dont have a dog in the fight, I will not give you the power you want, simply because its not an issue with me, your Issue is within,,,Closets were made by people who want to store items, your issues are not with me.

The issue is that so many have their own definition of what marriage is. It shouldn't only be targeted to one specific group.

Prohibiting interracial marriage is repulsive and so is prohibiting same sex marriage.

In fact, it's extremely disheartening to call it same sex marriage. Marriage is marriage.

Legalize it on a federal level and the debate can be over and done with. Oh wait, what's that? Some individuals carry a Bible around preaching what isn't actually in written in the book think it'd cause the end of the world?


Awesome.

Originally posted by rebellender
I will not give you the power you want, simply because its not an issue with me, your Issue is within,,,Closets were made by people who want to store items, your issues are not with me.

Um, what are you talking about?

reply to post by gentledissident


Its been voted on both ways and overturned its a football

I have no power in it

It is powerless because it is fruitless

Society cannot become a-sexual

it is my opinion there cannot be a minority status given to a social issue,
isnt this the elephant in the room nobody is talking about

Finally is it not pointless to argue position on an opinion

reply to post by Kali74

So I ask you is it fair that Uncle Don fought for his country but remains a second class citizen?

No it's not fair but thats just how the cookie crumbles. There nothing but disposable pawns. Nobody cares about the soldiers but the people. So it doesn't matter. Does any soldier deserve to be a second class citizen I would say everyone deserves it the way this country is spending money.

Please let me explain, say your walking down the street in Gotham City USA and a guy comes up to you and asks you - hey wadda ya think about gay marriage?....meanwhile his partner has already snuck up behind you and is picking your pockets clean while you ponder a response. PAY ATTENTION and exercise a little street smarts...Same sex marriage is one of many issues to keep you distracted from the massive fraud and criminality that is going down.

Same sex marriage, indeed any conjoinment between two people, has nothing to do with government or any fictitious superstition. We put the governments in place and we concocted the fairytales, so it should be we that make the decisions concerning our lives.

Provided we're not talking about under age or forced marriage, said sectors have zero business interfering in other peoples' lives.

Where someone finds attraction is no one else's business.

Lets move on shall we?

I promised I wouldn't comment on this wedge issue but I truly wish 'marriage' were a ceremony of two PEOPLE agreeing they are dedicated to that PARTNER for "life".

Marriage (in America) is a failed idea. I'm sorry but the numbers don't back it. If I were a betting man and in Vegas and on the board was a bet for the idea of marriage versus non, I'd take the bet against every time.

Not to say marriage can't be good, but the track record sucks.

If a church wants to perform a ceremony, fine. If the church happens to be gay friendly, fine. If a gay christian church wants to set up shop just for the sole purpose of same sex marriage, fine.

Who the hell cares? Two men living together and calling each other whatever title doesn't effect me one bit.

Why the hell do gay couples even want to be able to have the title "married" anyways? It should just be a blanket law that states all "unions" heterosexual or homosexual SHALL enjoy the same scope of rights and benefits.

Seriously, who the hell cares?

Marriage should be like when I was a kid. You would give a girl a ring or something and say "will you go out with me"?

LOL

And then some agency stamps a card. like maybe the post office, and you're both "LIFE PARTNERS".

And that's it.

reply to post by rebellender


Should we ignore a serious issue just because politicians are jerks? NO! Let put the gay marriage down for just a second and let me ask you...are you ok with there being second class citizens in the US? You are an American therefor you do have a dog in the fight or whatever it was you said.

Originally posted by rebellender
Society cannot become a-sexual

Um, what are you talking about?

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Marriage (in America) is a failed idea.

Yup. I hear there are some government issued benefits, but I've never looked into it. I've been happily unmarried for about a decade. I'd ask her exactly how long we've been living together, but that's poor form. If we have to be married for a situation like....say....stay together after visiting hours, we'll lie. In that case, we would be lying to overcome injustice. That kind of lie is ethical.