Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by TRENCHLORD, May 9, 2012.
i didnt realize Christians "owned" marriage
If a legal equivalent exists for homosexual social union then both pro and anti gay marriage parties get what they want, is that not the perfect compromise?
I don't agree with the majority of anti-gay marriage stances as they are born of bigotry, but I can understand the concern for the respect of religious tradition and how it could be seen as taking something away from religious types that has been a certain way for years.
I also understand that by not granting homosexuals "the whole hog" of the word marriage it would seem like they are some way not being granted full equality, but all the word marriage is the majority understands the definition as a certain thing.
A parallel union for homosexuals sounds like a good idea to me. In that sense if any anything I see it as empowering homosexuals as having their own specific union.
That WOULD make sense, but as has been said in this thread, christians don't have exclusive rights on marriage, despite their religion claiming otherwise. People have been getting married long before Christ left Mary's womb. As many have said, we want equal protection under the law and just equality in general. To say we can't have a marriage because it would upset religious groups is ludicrous. As a banner I once saw on my fb feed said, "If gay marriage is against your religion, don't get gay married." It really is that simple. Where it becomes a problem is religious groups trying to turn the US into a theocracy and cram their beliefs down everyone's throats. Misery loves company as they say, and it seems like their thinking is "Well since I have to live a miserable existence, then so does everyone else."
Many people try arguing that we already have civil unions, and should be grateful for that. Well as it stands, if I happen to be in a civil union and my partner ends up in the hospital, I'm forbidden from seeing them. I'm no better in the hospital's eyes than a friend or acquaintence. That's fucked up. How about being able to save on taxes by filing jointly? Nope, can't do that. What about if my partner is incapacitated, and needs me to act on their behalf? Nope. That would fall onto their next of kin, and if they happen to be bigots, they can do shit like get a restraining order against me just because they don't approve of me. Or at the very least, bar me from visiting my partner while they are in the hospital, even when friends are normally allowed to visit. It's amazing how many freedoms people take for granted until they are denied them.
Legal factors aside, what the hell makes us any less of people that we can't have a marriage. That very notion implies that we are less than other people and therefore we are not entitled to the same rights based on the who we sleep with. Being gay doesn't affect other people negatively in any way, it won't make you gay if you're not already, and I find it VERY unlikely that dudes banging dudes will bring about the next apocalypse. Why not just say fuck it, and legalize gay marriage? Because marriage is sacred? Please, divorce rates are so damn high these days. My dad is on his fifth marriage, and that one looks like it's about to flop too.
No, America is still being led around on it's short leash by modern fundie christians. THAT'S the real reason it's still banned.
The problem is, you run into concerns about "separate but equal;" a phrase that has enormously negative connotations for a large part of American history. That is why many states which allowed civil unions have gone on to legalize full gay marriage. Plus, many state civil unions are most definitely NOT "equal" to marriage.
Additionally, "gay marriage" has become synonymous with "gay acceptance," and is among the last bastions of homophobic inequality left in our legal system. This also means that the legal system discriminates against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation, treating them differently under the law.
By preventing gays from doing things that heterosexuals are allowed to do, even in name only, those who wish to marginalize them can justify their prejudice on existing law, and use this as a basis to justify ever more restrictive regulations such as the ones preventing adoption or making it legal to bully an individual based on "moral" reasons.
Also, I am friends with a very religious and conservative openly gay individual. He wants to get married in a church, with just as much ceremony as his sister. Why should he be denied that right?
To break a filibuster, yes.
American presidential votings. They're like an elephant and a donkey playing table tennis, just that it takes the ball a minimum of 4 years to get to the other side.
Without having read the whole thread: Am I right in my (uneducated) assumption that the evergreen topics, gay marriage and abortion, have given the basis for 70% of all the voting related discussions for about the last 20 years?
Maybe. Only because they are more of a person to person opinion issue instead of something based in facts and evidence like the economy or climate change or gun control.
The political reasons for support are much less deep, too. Like with gun control, a politician might be playing to his base AND financial interests of a lobbying group and whomever funded his campaign. That seems to happen more often with issues like that than civil rights. There's no real money in civil rights.
Ignoring the high emotions involved in these sorts of things, it seems to be much safer and easier to voice support for a social issue than something more complicated. And Obama finally figured that out.
I dont agree with making churches let gay people get married there. Thats just as wrong as banning gay marriage.
How about now?
Why on earth would a gay person want to get married by a church? Christianity is pretty explicitly homophobic.
Right. But churches are privately owned and for the most part free of the governments grasp, as we saw with the healthcare debate.
Nevertheless, I'm sure that certain more liberal churches, such as the one my parents go to, would allow such ceremonies.
Word. We should ban marriage anyway. All kinds.
Thats like me being upset I cant go to a kkk paty
Not all churches are homophobic and not all care. In states where it is legal I'm sure some have gotten married by a church so no one is being forced to do anything. Gay people could just open up the Church of Fabulous then they can't be denied.
I kid, I kid...
Yeah Im not saying they shouldnt, Im saying they shouldnt be forced to
I don't think that was even up for consideration. It's not an argument anyone was really making and honestly most marriages I've been to while religious were not hosted by a church or anything like that in the first place. Money talks they'll be able to find someone.
Religious people get married in churches.
You don't HAVE to have a ceremony in a church. It can be anywhere.
What are you on about, I didn't say anything like that
I said that church's that do not support gay marriage should be made to host such marriages, that's all.
Even if (when) gay marriage is legal, you still can't force a church to let you get married there, just like you currently can't force a church to allow a mixed faith marriage if it is against their doctrine. Churches are allowed to discriminate if they want, but if (when) it's legalised, churches that are okay with gay marriage will be allowed to marry gay couples.
Yeah exactly, i was just responding to Josh.
Who says gays have to be married in a church? Go to the courthouse, pay the fees and voila! You're married.
Want a ceremony? Have one at a park or in your backyard. No church needed.