Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Oh lol. forgive my ignorance. I had no idea.

Originally posted by nenothtu

So you believe that you will be able to bully the religious into accepting a concept they reject out of hand as being on a par with their own conceptions?

I don't give a crap about the religious. They are on the losing end of this Equal Rights issue.

There is No God in the Legal Government contract entitled Marriage License.

reply to post by TKDRL


lol... its ok!

I like it, because it makes divorce much less rash, much less a rush to judgement out of anger or something, the whole community tries and helps a couple work out their problems and stuff...but if in the end it is not able to be reconciled then a divorce will be granted. But the effort is made for the family.

its really nice actually! .... I am so weird for thinking the marriage laws are wonderful maybe!

But I do not think anyone in this country should hinder either religious right or equal rights, because that is not what the country is about.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by TKDRL

 

I do not understand what people do not understand or why we have to repeat every single question in the entire thread over...

can you or Neno explain to me what people are asking...? Please?

I am going to message Neno to ask for his help to understand too

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

They appear to want to know, with some high degree of specificity, which religious rights you believe are in danger if secular gay "marriages" are allowed. This of course cannot be answered with the desired specificity until you know just how far they intend to push their issues. Will they be content with civil unions, recognized by the law, or will they attempt to force religious recognition too, as Annee seems bent on? Will they be content with the government recognition (which I'm ok with - I don't recognize a government right to involve itself in marriages any how, whether homosexual or heterosexual, so I don't view ANY secular marriages as valid, such as those performed by a magistrate or Justice of the Peace), or will they try to force any church that will marry a hetero couple to marry a homosexual couple, too, and require the membership to view that union as valid as their own?

Until you know the full agenda, how far the intent is to impose on your beliefs, there is no way that you can answer their questions honestly, I think.

I am wanting to right to have a "state sanctioned" marriage, not a "religious sanctioned" marriage. I dont want a marriage that has anything to do with Christianity, Buddhism, Judism....etc

Just a "state sanctioned" marriage that affords me (and my spouse to be) the same legal rights as my married hetero family/friends.

I apologise if that upsets anyone...but its just what i believe i should be entitled to.

reply to post by nenothtu


Which is why I keep saying, so long as my marriage stay in my religion as an inviolible part of the constitution under the umbrella of freedom of religion



This way we are all clear and in perfect understanding yes?

reply to post by eternal_vigilance


Would you be happy if it was called something other than marriage? As long as you have the same benefits?

Originally posted by nenothtu
Will they be content with civil unions,

"Will THEY be content?"

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

AND - - the only people who push the incorrect propaganda that churches will be forced to marry gays - - - are the anti-gay groups.

Originally posted by eternal_vigilance
I am wanting to right to have a "state sanctioned" marriage, not a "religious sanctioned" marriage.

You should want a Federal sanctioned marriage.

Do you even know why states were given marriage rights? Purely for discrimination purpose.

States were given marriage rights so they could refuse anyone who didn't fit their community.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

In tribes and villages, a man and a woman would get together and have a child. The expression, "it takes a village to raise a child," comes from the idea that there was no "family unit," a child would be raised by an entire village and the village served as a large family unit.

I'm not clear on which "tribes" or "villages" you are referring to. My tribe has had marriage and family units from time immemorial. The family units were the basis for winter camps, when the tribe left the villages to winter on the available resources. We did not just breed willy-nilly with no thoughts of family.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Which is why I keep saying, so long as my marriage stay in my religion as an inviolible part of the constitution under the umbrella of freedom of religion

This way we are all clear and in perfect understanding yes?

It would seem so - unless the agenda is to be "more equal" than you. You don't force anyone else to recognize your relationships - that would be between yourself, your spouse, and your God. Likewise, they need not expect to force you to recognize theirs. What the State recognizes is the State's business, not mine. There is no reason I can think of that I have to recognize anything at all counter to my own beliefs as valid, any more than anyone else has to recognize my beliefs as valid, regardless of what the State recognizes as an entity.

I don't get married for the tax money, so I don't care what the State thinks. All the other objections can be met through alternative mechanisms.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Which is why I keep saying, so long as my marriage stay in my religion as an inviolible part of the constitution under the umbrella of freedom of religion

This way we are all clear and in perfect understanding yes?

Your marriage is under the umbrella of freedom of religion because you say so. The government says your married because you signed a legal contract with them. If you get a divorce, any way you like, you aren't legally divorced until the government says so.

As soon as your husband says, I'm taking a second wife, which may be sanctioned in your religions, the government will step in and say, "not sanctioned!" As soon as your distant cousin tries to marry a 12 year old, which may be sanctioned in your religion, the government will step in and forbid it.

So you see, the government already impinges on religion when it comes to marriage. The government is changing, allowing bi-racial marriages, allowing women to file for divorce and maybe allowing same sex couples to marry.

What you should fear, and I don't mean you in particular OP/OB, is if multi-couple marriage should become government sanctioned and your husband wants to marry his boyfriend too! Three's Company!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu
Will they be content with civil unions,

"Will THEY be content?"

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

No. Enlighten me. What is the purpose of a marriage if not contentment? Finances? they have a name for that, you know.

AND - - the only people who push the incorrect propaganda that churches will be forced to marry gays - - - are the anti-gay groups.

Time will tell, I suppose. If the intent is not to force religions to recognize these "marriages", why would they not be content with civil unions, as so many hetero couples are? In other words, if all they are after is State recognition - a "Civil Union", why are they not content to call it what it IS, and rest in the same rights as hetero couple who engage in Civil Unions?

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Because the Bible is and has been twisted to fit man's logic (or lack thereof) since the day it was written, so NO ONE except God Himself knows how he feel about homosexuals?

Because not every person believes in the same God, or secret book as you do?

Because they want EQUAL (not more or less) rights under the law of this country?

Because contrary to what some people think, marriage is marriage?

Not too long ago, my current marriage was illegal. We are interracial and interfaith. Please, tell me how my marriage, at this moment in time, is harming someone else's marriage?

It isn't, is it?

reply to post by nenothtu


Truth be told, women invented marriage BECAUSE the men WERE breeding willy nilly!

No self respecting hunter / warrior would have considered marriage if it were not forced on them by sexual refusal.

It reminds me of Meat Loaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light."

reply to post by nenothtu


there is one point on definition in the english language that becomes problematic.... its the fact its in english...lol

Its comes from other languages and other interpretations of other languages then the word itself apears able to change meaning over time...

But there should be some specificity to english to specify such as other languages are specified, the entire Civil Union verses marriage divide seems pretty good as a definition.... but apparently it is one that not everyone wishes to agree with.

English really should simply give everyone a headache... i think this was the purpose of it... headaches!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Which is why I keep saying, so long as my marriage stay in my religion as an inviolible part of the constitution under the umbrella of freedom of religion

This way we are all clear and in perfect understanding yes?

It would seem so - unless the agenda is to be "more equal" than you. You don't force anyone else to recognize your relationships - that would be between yourself, your spouse, and your God. Likewise, they need not expect to force you to recognize theirs. What the State recognizes is the State's business, not mine. There is no reason I can think of that I have to recognize anything at all counter to my own beliefs as valid, any more than anyone else has to recognize my beliefs as valid, regardless of what the State recognizes as an entity.

I don't get married for the tax money, so I don't care what the State thinks. All the other objections can be met through alternative mechanisms.

But a state sponsored relationship receives tax benefits from the tax paying society. Its not " more equal" it's just equal.

Originally posted by windword

What you should fear, and I don't mean you in particular OP/OB, is that multi-couple marriage is government sanctioned and your husband wants to marry his boyfriend too!

Three's Company!

Since when is Polyamory sanctioned by the American government?

Or did you mean another country?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu
Will they be content with civil unions,

"Will THEY be content?"

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

No. Enlighten me. What is the purpose of a marriage if not contentment?

The full sentence is: "Will they be content with civil unions?"

I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out.

You know "THEY".