Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by kaylaluv


I said something via PM to the OP and I think it applies here.

Keeping religion out of government, and government out of religion is the only way for you to protect your rights to religious freedom and my right to not be incumbered by it.

You're right that it should be all civil unions, that religion never should have been recognized as a legal institution when it came to laws and rights provided by contracts with the state.

However, progress, is creating civil unions for same sex couples and THEN they can change their movement and request something else.

But you can't start doing something, work on it for 20 years, pretty much get a thumbs up from everybody involved and then decide it's not good enough.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I guess I do not understand.

Can you explain your thinking in more detail?


After Edit:

What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.

if this makes sense.

If we are having civil unions recognised as a non religious state affair.... what might religious marriages have to do, or fight for, so that we never loose any of our rights, or risk them?

Honestly the only solution I really see, so that no one risks loosing rights, is simply to exclude any of this from being a government affair.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk,

How?

If you buy a car and a gay person buys a car, how does that risk your car purchase?
If you get a drivers license and a gay person gets a drivers license, how does that risk your driving ability?

What you're saying about constitutional rights doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by tothetenthpower

What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.

Again your rights aren't being threatened. Recognizing marriages between same sex couples does not invalidate your marriage, or make it less significant, regardless of what it's called.

If we are having civil unions recognised as a non religious state affair.... what might religious marriages have to do, or fight for, so that we never loose any of our rights, or risk them?

That's the thing, you already have all the rights. The system was made to protect your rights and prevent anybody else from getting them, that's why it needs to change and be made so that all consenting adults with civil contracts can have access to those rights.

Honestly the only solution I really see, so that no one risks loosing rights, is simply to exclude any of this from being a government affair.

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

That is the ideal situation, but it won't happen, the state makes too much money off marriages. I wish they would revert back to civil unions for all marriages regarding the legal issues and then churches and citizens would be free to do as they please and call it whatever they please.

Defining a legal contract between two or more consenting adults and the state as "marriage" is the actual problem.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


ok....


Thank you again btw, you helped me a lot.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by daynight42

 

I am not here to debate the existence of God, or who or what constitutes God, nor am I pushing any religious belief.

I am trying to understand a concept, as we know it today, in this country, concerning what constitutes religious freedom, and equal rights under the law in regards marriage and/or living together.

No you're not. Your entire opening thread revolves around religion and God and how you only see marriage under those terms. That necessarily makes you debating the existence of God within this context.

The short answer I think is very obvious: Not everyone sees marriage as having anything to do with religion and THAT is what some gay people are fighting for. To you, marriage has everything to do with religion. But for I'd say a great great GREAT number of people, it has nothing to do with churches or religions, even though it does take place at a church.

Concerning religious freedom, there IS religious freedom. There are Christian and Catholic churches that will not marry gays and don't want to be told to do so. And there are Christian and Catholic churches who will marry gays, and yes, they read the same bible. Do not forget that ALL these different forms of religion emanating from the same book all have their OWN interpretation of this book. There's nothing to prevent me from interpreting it my way and opening my own church.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I guess I do not understand.

Can you explain your thinking in more detail?


After Edit:

What religious people are worried about is a loss of rights if marriage is redefined. If the gay marriage people redefine it then religious marriages are at risk, at least until we fight it in the constitution, and I hate to have to loose rights, because once lost almost impossible to regain.

if this makes sense.

If we are having civil unions recognised as a non religious state affair.... what might religious marriages have to do, or fight for, so that we never loose any of our rights, or risk them?

Honestly the only solution I really see, so that no one risks loosing rights, is simply to exclude any of this from being a government affair.

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

It sounds to me like you're afraid of losing the right to interpret homosexuality as wrong, because that's the only thing I could possibly see that would make sense. In any other scenario, gays suddenly being allowed marriage doesn't change ANYTHING about heterosexual marriages, religious or otherwise. No rights are lost whatsoever.

Therefore, I imagine you fear losing the right to think of homosexuality as morally wrong. What else could it be? That would be a case of a government stepping in and saying, "You have to marry homosexuals and you have to accept them," which though I'm gay, I disagree with because like it or not, that would unfair.

But what other rights are you afraid of losing, and HOW? Non-sensical.

In this day and age people do not need the permission of a church to get married, so gay marriage should not be an issue.

I don't understand why gay people are not allowed to get married in some places?

All men/women are equal, and should be treated as such.

Their unwillingness to compromise on a major issue for religious folk is extremely poor form. If those people are going to carry on a fight, and actually change the basic principles of the movement then they need to stop asking for legal rights and start asking for the term marriage be defined legally by the supreme court as something different than " one Man, one woman".

~Tenth

Well that IS what they're trying to do. And while I agree with most of the rest of your post, and while I myself, a gay guy, don't give a rat's ass about marrying anyone since I consider it meaningless, I still see a relatively important difference in marriage and civil union. Wrong or right, gay people who are fighting for specifically marriage over civil union, are also fighting discrimination, religious or otherwise.