Gay Marriage? Or just legal benefits

[PolySciGuy]

Ok, what if the bible said that playing basketball is wrong, and you love basketball? What do you do? Even if being gay is a series of effects happening on you to make you that way, i dont think a book that was writen 7000 years ago should be able to tell you whats right and wrong. And even a book that hasnt been proven to be non fiction.

If my religion dictated that basketball was wrong, I wouldn't want you to play basketball in my church. I also wouldn't want you to associate basketball with my church. If you were getting married, and somehow the act of getting married meant you were going to be playing a lot of basketball, I wouldn't want you yo use the term "married" because I feel a strong religious connection to the word

 

[PolySciGuy]

Gay marriage is fine, there is no such thing as separate but equal.

I do not believe that they are equal.

GM would be similar to an Atheist marriage in the fact that it has no affirmation by the creator, unlike a Christian marriage

So separate, but packaged as equal is also not equal

 

[jfuh]

I do not believe that they are equal.

GM would be similar to an Atheist marriage in the fact that it has no affirmation by the creator, unlike a Christian marriage

So separate, but packaged as equal is also not equal

Under the eyes of the state, this argument of religion is moot.

Some of us think that somehow this is a christian state that politics stays out of religion but not the other way around. what you are forgetting is that to practice true freedom of religion, you keep the church out of the state to protect the state from interfering with the church. Want to see a state that combines the two? Go to Iran.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Under the eyes of the state, this argument of religion is moot.

Some of us think that somehow this is a christian state that politics stays out of religion but not the other way around. what you are forgetting is that to practice true freedom of religion, you keep the church out of the state to protect the state from interfering with the church. Want to see a state that combines the two? Go to Iran.

I associate the word marriage with spirituality, much like many other people. In order for the state to stay out of my spirituality, they must accept that it exists, and not bushel together apples and oranges calling them the same thing.

 

[jfuh]

I associate the word marriage with spirituality, much like many other people. In order for the state to stay out of my spirituality, they must accept that it exists, and not bushel together apples and oranges calling them the same thing.

Like I said, you can't have religious freedom unless you take government out of religion and religion out of state. THe moment you start interjecting religion into state is the moment you take out religious freedom from the constitution.
Hence, it doesn't matter how many associate marriage with religion or spirituality, it's all moot before the state.

 

[bigsmitty]

I think, in many ways, the institution of marriage was never purely religious. For most of European history, it was almost always economic, because of the patriarchal society it was, and like it was in the US for a very long time.

I think gay marriages should garner all of the same rights as a heterosexual marriage, and I think it should be called a marriage. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

 

[DeeJayH]

I think, in many ways, the institution of marriage was never purely religious. For most of European history, it was almost always economic, because of the patriarchal society it was, and like it was in the US for a very long time.

I think gay marriages should garner all of the same rights as a heterosexual marriage, and I think it should be called a marriage. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

but it would appease many who oppose it
and would allow for a better transition for what is inevitably coming

 

[PolySciGuy]

I think, in many ways, the institution of marriage was never purely religious. For most of European history, it was almost always economic, because of the patriarchal society it was, and like it was in the US for a very long time.

I think gay marriages should garner all of the same rights as a heterosexual marriage, and I think it should be called a marriage. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

Yes, like DJ says, I would be fine if my separate status (or eventual status) was acknowledged, and not blended into the smoothie that would become marriage. I think you have to admit that the sexual/emotional relationship between two men is different from the same type of relationship in a hetero couple.

Denying religion's existence is different from religious freedom

 

[bigsmitty]

Yes, like DJ says, I would be fine if my separate status (or eventual status) was acknowledged, and not blended into the smoothie that would become marriage. I think you have to admit that the sexual/emotional relationship between two men is different from the same type of relationship in a hetero couple.

Denying religion's existence is different from religious freedom

Why are we such big fans of symantical labeling systems? If a homosexual couple is given all the rights of a heterosexual couple that is married, what is it?

X= 3, Y= 3, and therefore, doesn't X=Y?

I'm not denying religion's existance, I just disagree with the idea of it being applied to legal matters, especially considering that two heterosexual people can be married on the same terms gay people are being married in Massachusetts now. Any two people can be married by the state, and not have it recogonized by a church, and can be married by a non-religious figure.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Why are we such big fans of symantical labeling systems? If a homosexual couple is given all the rights of a heterosexual couple that is married, what is it?

X= 3, Y= 3, and therefore, doesn't X=Y?

I'm not denying religion's existance, I just disagree with the idea of it being applied to legal matters, especially considering that two heterosexual people can be married on the same terms gay people are being married in Massachusetts now. Any two people can be married by the state, and not have it recogonized by a church, and can be married by a non-religious figure.

but IMO that is not a marriage, that is something else, recognized by the state. IMO marriage is ratifies through religion

 

[jallman]

but IMO that is not a marriage, that is something else, recognized by the state. IMO marriage is ratifies through religion

Then by your own opinion you cannot justify government involvement in any kind of marriage, straight or otherwise. If a Church (such as some Episcopalians) want to marry gays, then there has to be acceptance of that by the state. Well, that or no acceptance of any marriage.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Then by your own opinion you cannot justify government involvement in any kind of marriage, straight or otherwise. If a Church (such as some Episcopalians) want to marry gays, then there has to be acceptance of that by the state. Well, that or no acceptance of any marriage.

correct, no acceptance of any marriage, just the acceptance of a contract between two people that replaces the current legal duties of marriage

 

[jfuh]

correct, no acceptance of any marriage, just the acceptance of a contract between two people that replaces the current legal duties of marriage

Semantics
Your arguments are with the church and not with the state; thus irrelevant to this thread.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Semantics
Your arguments are with the church and not with the state; thus irrelevant to this thread.

#1 I started this thread

#2 you are wrong, and here is why. You propose to make the state change the definition of marriage. This would affect my religious, and therefore, mental wellbeing, in effect harming me.

I am fine with your changing the definition of the word, but I propose a new word used to describe the legal union between any two people who don't have anything to do with their religion.

So I am fine with my religion, and I support it. My argument is against the state, and those that advocate for GM from the side of my religion

 

[Gardener]

#2 you are wrong, and here is why. You propose to make the state change the definition of marriage. This would affect my religious, and therefore, mental wellbeing, in effect harming me.

I'm still smarting, myself, from the way Pluto's status was downgraded from planet to planetoid, or planetissimal or planetelle or whatever the heck it was. Why did they have to go and change things,anyway? It affected my science and therefore, my well being was damaged.


I've almost lost all interest in astronomy, and the pain is downright unbearable!

 

[PolySciGuy]

I'm still smarting, myself, from the way Pluto's status was downgraded from planet to planetoid, or planetissimal or planetelle or whatever the heck it was. Why did they have to go and change things,anyway? It affected my science and therefore, my well being was damaged.


I've almost lost all interest in astronomy, and the pain is downright unbearable!

science and religion are different, and in some instances completely opposite. If you worshiped Pluto, that would make sense.

If I simply thought that marriage was a scientific definition, I wouldn't care.

 

[jfuh]

#1 I started this thread

So? I've showed how your argument is irrelevant.

#2 you are wrong, and here is why. You propose to make the state change the definition of marriage. This would affect my religious, and therefore, mental wellbeing, in effect harming me.

I am fine with your changing the definition of the word, but I propose a new word used to describe the legal union between any two people who don't have anything to do with their religion.

So I am fine with my religion, and I support it. My argument is against the state, and those that advocate for GM from the side of my religion

AS had been asked of you then, there are religions in this country that believe in gay marriages, hence if you force the change of marriage to another term you would be harming them. As I said, your argument is over religion and has nothing to do with the state. To protect marriage as your religion dictates, it's quite simple, just don't allow gay members within your religion to marry. Before the state though that is irrelevant what your religion accepts or condones - this country undeniably practices religious freedom, and as I've stated time and time again; in order to maintain that religious freedom religion has to keep it's hands out of the state just as the state needs to keep it's hands out of religion. The state allowing for legal homosexual marriage does not force your religion to accept gay marriage, you are still free to invalidate it within your religion as much as you like.
From your own definition source however;

4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage. 5.any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

Your own source includes even homosexual marriages within the definition itself. Thus, seemingly, there's no need for the state to change the definition as you have cited. Will you accept it?

 

[PolySciGuy]

So? I've showed how your argument is irrelevant.


AS had been asked of you then, there are religions in this country that believe in gay marriages, hence if you force the change of marriage to another term you would be harming them. As I said, your argument is over religion and has nothing to do with the state. To protect marriage as your religion dictates, it's quite simple, just don't allow gay members within your religion to marry. Before the state though that is irrelevant what your religion accepts or condones - this country undeniably practices religious freedom, and as I've stated time and time again; in order to maintain that religious freedom religion has to keep it's hands out of the state just as the state needs to keep it's hands out of religion. The state allowing for legal homosexual marriage does not force your religion to accept gay marriage, you are still free to invalidate it within your religion as much as you like.
From your own definition source however;
Your own source includes even homosexual marriages within the definition itself. Thus, seemingly, there's no need for the state to change the definition as you have cited. Will you accept it?

Well... I suppose I must, I guess