There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[JoeyKnothead]

In a society of diverse beliefs there are bound to be someone's beliefs out there which aren't going to correspond with mine. Fortunately, I live in a nation whereby freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment: no government may establish a State's religion and force me to belong to it, nor prohibit my free exercise religion thereof...

You seem to be quite accepting of a government that allows your freedom, yet you would use your vote to deny others their freedom?

people can believe marriage is for citizenship, or economic stability, or legitimizing their sexual relations, ...all they want...But no one can prohibit my living out my belief that the highest calling of marriage is for the generation of the human race.

Nor can they, it would seem, prevent anyone hating another group of people because of backwards, bronze age thinking.

Humanity cannot be represented by any number, however large, of individuals of like sex but is to be found solely in the social and organic union of man and woman. Our Creator created man and woman to be equal representatives of humanity: 'male and female he created them' (Gen 1:27)...and the union of the complementary sexes lead to the function of human race being fruitful and multiply.

I find it especially horrid when folks hide behind the Bible to support their hatred. In a world of free people we must protect everyone, not just those we may deem worthy.

For this reason, calling on freedom of religion, I have a right to live a society where marriage is recognized as a union between a man and woman. Fortunately, I live in a nation where we can settle our difference of beliefs the democratic way.

Ah yes, the old majority rules. Stir up the Fundies and get elected. You seem soooooo happy to live in a society that allows you all the rights you feel are important, but woe be to those with whom you disagree. Does freedom not mean anything to you? Or does freedom only apply when it gives you cover for your religious based oppression of others? Does freedom only appply to your religious belief, or could it ever apply to everybody? Freedom is for ALL, not just the ones in power. Freedom has been wrought from the oppressors by the sacrifices of many good men and women, yet you would use their sacrifices to oppress, to deny others the rights given us by so many maimed and fallen soldiers?

I have nothing against people who live in same-sex union; they too are freely exercising their right to their lifestyle choice. If they wish to gain economic stability, or citizenship, then they're free to call for changes in tax laws, citizenship laws etc. recognizing same-sex unions the same privileges enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Don't be surprise if I won't deny them a vote.

Hypocricy, thy name is Fundie speak! If you have nothing against someone, you wouldn't seek to oppress them. If you had nothing against someone, then your whole string of posts within this thread would read differently. You are hiding behind majority rule, saying folks have the right to seek justice. Why not GIVE THEM JUSTICE NOW!? Not 'same sex unions', but marriage. The United States tried that whole separate but equal thing, and it didn't work. No, you won't deny a vote, but I would bet you would stand in line to vote against them.

Hypocrisy is rampant in fundamentalism. These are folks who think they are so superior because they think some being up in the sky has selected them as sole arbiter and judge of what folks should do. Here is a prime example. This poster declares no problem with someone, yet would use the power of government to deny them basic human concerns. Do not fool yourselves, if we allow fundies to keep oppressing others, it will be only a matter of time before they come after us. Fundies are a pox on humanity, they only care about their interpretation of good and bad, and anyone who challenges them risk serious consequences.

I would pity these folks, were it not for their stated goal of converting the US into a theocracy.

Dang a fundie. Dang em all.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I have just scanned through the thread, and actually, I see a bit of a consensus emerging. Those who object against gay marriage seem to do mostly because of the ceremonies and rituals associated with marriage, which they feel are meant to be for a man and a woman. Few people, if any, seem to want to deny gays the right to live their own lifestyle and enjoy the same legal rights and protection offered to married couples.

A few quotes from this thread:

There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

We who demand freedom will not stop until ALL are free to live as they see fit.

Denying gays the right to marry wouldn't be such an issue if married couples didn't receive tax breaks, joint custody of children (If a gay couple adopts, only one is a legal guardian in most cases so if they die, the child gets taken away from the parent that is still living), and other benefits that gay couples (whether they are in a domestic partnership, civil union, or whatever) don't get.

I guess what I don't like the thought of is a wedding ceremony that involves same sex couples. Probably not so much the signing of legal papers.
...
Well I was never against giving them the same legal rights. It's just the whole "marriage" and "wedding" thing that I have an issue with.

I have nothing against people who live in same-sex union; they too are freely exercising their right to their lifestyle choice. If they wish to gain economic stability, or citizenship, then they're free to call for changes in tax laws, citizenship laws etc. recognizing same-sex unions the same privileges enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Don't be surprise if I won't deny them a vote.

Now I wonder: if a new term would be devised for being gay and married, for example "heart-pledged" or "soul-sworn", and to give that term exactly the same civil status as marriage, with all rights, duties and portability, would any of you object to that?

For the record, I don't object to gay marriage using the term we have now. I would, however accept gay marriage, using a different term as a compromise to give gay married couples the same rights as straight marriage couples. The term used is trivial, in the face of ensuring equality.

[McCulloch]

I have just scanned through the thread, and actually, I see a bit of a consensus emerging. Those who object against gay marriage seem to do mostly because of the ceremonies and rituals associated with marriage, which they feel are meant to be for a man and a woman. Few people, if any, seem to want to deny gays the right to live their own lifestyle and enjoy the same legal rights and protection offered to married couples. [...]
Now I wonder: if a new term would be devised for being gay and married, for example "heart-pledged" or "soul-sworn", and to give that term exactly the same civil status as marriage, with all rights, duties and portability, would any of you object to that?

I have a great suggestion. Here is a word which can be used to describe the status of those couples who are of the same sex who have the exactly the same civil status as marriage, with all of the rights, duties and portability, marriage.

[Jester]

I have a great suggestion. Here is a word which can be used to describe the status of those couples who are of the same sex who have the exactly the same civil status as marriage, with all of the rights, duties and portability, marriage.

This does bring up somthing of an important point. I've long since considered marraige to have many facets (any married person would agree, I'd think). My wife and I had both a civil and a religious service. This was for practical reasons, but I liked the distinction. For me, there is both a civil and a religious side (as well as a couple of others), I don't see, therefore, that offering civil rights should have any religious implication. Frankly, it allready doesn't in this culture.
A pretty wordy way to agree with you, I know, but I couldn't resist throwing my own spin on this one.

[TMMaria]

You seem to be quite accepting of a government that allows your freedom, yet you would use your vote to deny others their freedom?

Good, you didn't miss that part: I approve of a government that allows personal freedom of beliefs. Where personal beliefs clash: namely, your calling "marriage" a union of man and man, woman and woman, and my calling "marriage" a union of man and woman, which is the only union possible for the generation of humanity...am I to give up my beliefs because your freedom is more important so important you decide to change the definion of marriage? Call that same-sex lifestyle by another name, but all including all of my future children's generation shall know marriage is between a man and woman. I vote for what I believe, you vote for what you believe, agree? Because by definition your vote will also deny my freedom to believe in and present to my children what is marriage....and my vote deny yours. Any problems?

Nor can they, it would seem, prevent anyone hating another group of people because of backwards, bronze age thinking.

Oh, I see...you do have a problem. Was that a statement calling for hate as a response to the problem of our religious differences?

I find it especially horrid when folks hide behind the Bible to support their hatred. In a world of free people we must protect everyone, not just those we may deem worthy.

Do you usually presume hatred accompanies with stating what one consider a truth? Or, is that really your usual habit of allowing hatred to accompany your belief?

Ah yes, the old majority rules. Stir up the Fundies and get elected. You seem soooooo happy to live in a society that allows you all the rights you feel are important, but woe be to those with whom you disagree.

If not democracy to settle our conflicting beliefs on what is marriage, what you do propose? Would you resort to tyranny to force me to accept your beliefs?

Does freedom not mean anything to you? Or does freedom only apply when it gives you cover for your religious based oppression of others? Does freedom only appply to your religious belief, or could it ever apply to everybody? Freedom is for ALL, not just the ones in power. Freedom has been wrought from the oppressors by the sacrifices of many good men and women, yet you would use their sacrifices to oppress, to deny others the rights given us by so many maimed and fallen soldiers?

Well does it mean anything to you? Who just propose hate as a response to something with different religious beliefs than yours? If you so honor good men and women....start with changing your hate proposal.

Why not GIVE THEM JUSTICE NOW!? Not 'same sex unions', but marriage. The United States tried that whole separate but equal thing, and it didn't work. No, you won't deny a vote, but I would bet you would stand in line to vote against them.

If they call for the same privilege of having economic stability or citizenship, or public declaration of their lifelong union or whatever else of this temporal life, fine...let them have it. Give to Caesare what belongs to Caesar. That's what the State is for...to see the happiness of the temporal life of its citizens...But the Church speaks up for the greater happiness of not just this temporal life but the eternal life beyond. But, no need to go into that with you, your concern is only for this short-lived life...

as I am called to love my brothers and sisters not only in this temporal life but beyond...loving them not just body but also soul...I will continue to share this truth to them out of love for their souls and the eternal life beyond: homosexual union isn't in the Divine plan. It's better they will to overrule their homosexual preferences, and live in purity. It's certainly their choice to chose what to believe. But they shall always know from believers like myself, whose life and actions serve as witness: human sexuality belongs in marriage, and marriage is between a man and woman.

[micatala]

You seem to be quite accepting of a government that allows your freedom, yet you would use your vote to deny others their freedom?

Good, you didn't miss that part: I approve of a government that allows personal freedom of beliefs. Where personal beliefs clash: namely, your calling "marriage" a union of man and man, woman and woman, and my calling "marriage" a union of man and woman, which is the only union possible for the generation of humanity...am I to give up my beliefs because your freedom is more important so important you decide to change the definion of marriage? Call that same-sex lifestyle by another name, but all including all of my future children's generation shall know marriage is between a man and woman. I vote for what I believe, you vote for what you believe, agree? Because by definition your vote will also deny my freedom to believe in and present to my children what is marriage....and my vote deny yours. Any problems?

Yes. Big problems.

The issue is not "beliefs". THe issue is freedom.

Your freedom to beleive what you want does not mean you get to make everyone else act in accordance with your beliefs. The legality of gay marriage may offend you and you might prefer not to have to live in a society where gay marriage is legal, but it does not in any way restrict your freedom to act and believe as you wish, nor to teach your children what you believe.

However, if the majority imposes a gay marriage ban, it does restrict the freedom of gays.

Government should not, in a free society, be used as a bludgeon to impose beliefs of a subset of the population as laws which all must follow.

I find it especially horrid when folks hide behind the Bible to support their hatred. In a world of free people we must protect everyone, not just those we may deem worthy.

Do you usually presume hatred accompanies with stating what one consider a truth? Or, is that really your usual habit of allowing hatred to accompany your belief?

I don't necessarily consider that all anti-gay attitudes amount to hate. I would prefer we use at least somewhat less loaded terms. I could see that one might say that people who don't believe gays should have equal rights, including marriage, might be legitimately accused of bigotry or bias. I don't see that bigotry equates to hate.

Ah yes, the old majority rules. Stir up the Fundies and get elected. You seem soooooo happy to live in a society that allows you all the rights you feel are important, but woe be to those with whom you disagree.

If not democracy to settle our conflicting beliefs on what is marriage, what you do propose? Would you resort to tyranny to force me to accept your beliefs?

Democracy could mean that whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. However, in the U.S. we do not have "total democracy". The constitution grants us rights which cannot be taken away, regardless of what the majority believes. At times in our history, we have over-ridden the constitution with the "tyranny of the majority." Slavery and Jim Crow are examples of this. Bans on gay marriage are another.

Again, the issue is not beliefs. You are free to believe as you wish. Allowing gay marriage is in no way a "tyranny" which forces you to believe or profess something you do not wish to.

The issue is what the law of the land says. To enact gay marriage bans on the basis of religious doctrine is a violation of the first amendment clause on freedom of religion.

Why not GIVE THEM JUSTICE NOW!? Not 'same sex unions', but marriage. The United States tried that whole separate but equal thing, and it didn't work. No, you won't deny a vote, but I would bet you would stand in line to vote against them.

If they call for the same privilege of having economic stability or citizenship, or public declaration of their lifelong union or whatever else of this temporal life, fine...let them have it. Give to Caesare what belongs to Caesar. That's what the State is for...to see the happiness of the temporal life of its citizens...But the Church speaks up for the greater happiness of not just this temporal life but the eternal life beyond. But, no need to go into that with you, your concern is only for this short-lived life...

as I am called to love my brothers and sisters not only in this temporal life but beyond...loving them not just body but also soul...I will continue to share this truth to them out of love for their souls and the eternal life beyond: homosexual union isn't in the Divine plan. It's better they will to overrule their homosexual preferences, and live in purity. It's certainly their choice to chose what to believe. But they shall always know from believers like myself, whose life and actions serve as witness: human sexuality belongs in marriage, and marriage is between a man and woman.

Does TMMaria believe that enacting a ban on gay marriage would result in gays going to heaven?

Does TMMaria believe that it is appropriate for government to mandate that people behave or believe in a way that will lead to their salvation?

Each of us, according the Bible, is free to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. Whatever your theology, nearly all Christians believe that our eternal life is based on our own choices, belief, and/or actions.

Given this, what the state does is, or should be, irrelevant to our salvation. Your position seems tantamount to establishing your religious views as state law and policy. As such, you are not really "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

[Sjoerd]

Given this, what the state does is, or should be, irrelevant to our salvation. Your position seems tantamount to establishing your religious views as state law and policy. As such, you are not really "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

I may be grossly misinterpreting her views, but as far as I can see, TMMaria does not want to deny any rights to gays, just that their partnership is not called "marriage".

In the Netherlands there are some people who by principle refuse to pay taxes. The state has solved this by making them agree to pay a fee for police, social services, etc., which, for some reason, turns out to be exactly the same sum as what they would have otherwise paid as taxes. Why would this be a problem for anyone?

[JoeyKnothead]

I have a great suggestion. Here is a word which can be used to describe the status of those couples who are of the same sex who have the exactly the same civil status as marriage, with all of the rights, duties and portability, marriage.

Here, here! Simple solution to what some are trying to make a complex problem.

am I to give up my beliefs because your freedom is more important so important you decide to change the definion of marriage?

I don't want you to give up your beliefs, I want you to not use them as a basis to deny others their freedoms.
The word marriage has powerful meaning for many folks, and for society. If gay folks want to get married, and call that a marriage, then that's their right. It does not trample on your freedom to believe its wrong, no matter how wrong your opinion on the matter is. When the state sanctions something that is a marriage, but then says it's 'something other than a marriage', then it implies that it is not a marriage.
There is a difference between your freedom to think as you wish and denying others the right to live as they wish. I think I lack the intellectual capacity to properly explain this to you.

I vote for what I believe, you vote for what you believe, agree? Because by definition your vote will also deny my freedom to believe in and present to my children what is marriage....and my vote deny yours. Any problems?

Difference is, my vote will be cast for the folks to enjoy the freedoms our Founding Fathers, and our military fought and died for. Your vote will go to oppress an entire class of people.
Problems? Yes, knowing the sacrifices many good men and women have made to support the freedoms of people they don't even know would be dismissed in such a bigoted, uncaring, heartless manner.

Nor can they, it would seem, prevent anyone hating another group of people because of backwards, bronze age thinking.

Oh, I see...you do have a problem. Was that a statement calling for hate as a response to the problem of our religious differences?

No, that was a statement that the Constitution gives everyone to the right to hate others because their backwards, bronze age religion tells them to.
Again, it would seem as if my intellectual capacity to explain myself has failed again.

I find it especially horrid when folks hide behind the Bible to support their hatred. In a world of free people we must protect everyone, not just those we may deem worthy

Do you usually presume hatred accompanies with stating what one consider a truth? Or, is that really your usual habit of allowing hatred to accompany your belief?

When one considers backwards, bronze age, bigoted ideas the truth, yeah, I hate that. I notice you were quick to reply to the first sentence that attacked a hateful aspect of religion, but you failed to respond to the sentence about protecting the rights of everyone. So am I to further assume you have no problem restricting the freedoms of others, but you'd get your frillies all bunched up if someone dared point out the hatred within your religious beliefs? Or do you just hate 'teh gays' independent of your religious indoctrination?

If not democracy to settle our conflicting beliefs on what is marriage, what you do propose? Would you resort to tyranny to force me to accept your beliefs?

Nah, democracy is slow, but the tide is turning (hat tip to Roger Waters, was a great tune). We see once oppressed minorities speaking up, and claiming their rights in the face of the oppressors. We see religious bigotry having to justify itself, and it is failing miserably. Though there is much to be done, freedom is claiming its rightful place in total disregard to the cries of the oppressors. Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Hide oppressors! We will find you, and all who wish for freedom will dance to the tune of your defeat!

Well does it mean anything to you? Who just propose hate as a response to something with different religious beliefs than yours? If you so honor good men and women....start with changing your hate proposal.

Never! Hate the oppressors! Hate them with all the hate they spew at you! Hate the oppressors for their intolerance! Hate them for the very air they corrupt with their breath! Hate the oppressors on every piece of land on the planet! Leave the oppressor no comfort, no rest, no silence from the sounds of Freedom! Glorious Freedom! Freedom for all from the vile image of the oppressor! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!

Is that too over the top? Nah, didn't think so!

But the Church speaks up for the greater happiness of not just this temporal life but the eternal life beyond. But, no need to go into that with you, your concern is only for this short-lived life...

You don't know much history do you? Science?

human sexuality belongs in marriage, and marriage is between a man and woman.

As bigotry is between the bigot and their God.

[micatala]

Given this, what the state does is, or should be, irrelevant to our salvation. Your position seems tantamount to establishing your religious views as state law and policy. As such, you are not really "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

I may be grossly misinterpreting her views, but as far as I can see, TMMaria does not want to deny any rights to gays, just that their partnership is not called "marriage".

In the Netherlands there are some people who by principle refuse to pay taxes. The state has solved this by making them agree to pay a fee for police, social services, etc., which, for some reason, turns out to be exactly the same sum as what they would have otherwise paid as taxes. Why would this be a problem for anyone?

I am with McCulloch on this one. Separate but equal does not cut it.

They only possible reason I can see for supporting an alternative language or structure like 'civil unions' is as a short term political expedient. Get 'civil unions' approved, and hopefully later we can just drop the alternative language and just call it marriage, which is what most people would call it anyway. How many gays do you think would say "we're getting a civil union in June, will you be my bridesmaid?" instead of just saying "we're getting married?"

Unfortunately, some are so opposed even civil unions are not OK. In my state, we passed a ban on anything that even had a whiff of being a union between gays. No civil unions, no domestic partnerships, nothing. My only solace is it only passed with 52% of the vote.

[McCulloch]

I have a great suggestion. Here is a word which can be used to describe the status of those couples who are of the same sex who have the exactly the same civil status as marriage, with all of the rights, duties and portability, marriage.

This does bring up something of an important point. I've long since considered marriage to have many facets (any married person would agree, I'd think). My wife and I had both a civil and a religious service. This was for practical reasons, but I liked the distinction. For me, there is both a civil and a religious side (as well as a couple of others), I don't see, therefore, that offering civil rights should have any religious implication. Frankly, it allready doesn't in this culture.
A pretty wordy way to agree with you, I know, but I couldn't resist throwing my own spin on this one.

We're in complete agreement. Each religion is free to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit. When a same sex couple finds a religious group willing to perform their nuptials, then they also will have the religious side. You or others may not recognize the legitimacy of the religious group willing to do that, but that really does not matter.