Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Green Gaia]

I'm against gay marriage, but not against civil unions between gays. I have gay relatives with whom I'm close, but my traditionalists, religious, and social ideals are not so easily swayed. Personally, as long as they don't call it marriage, and as long as the terms husband and wife stay on the hetro side; they can do whatever they want.

I said it; don't kill me

Well that's your opinion. I certainly don't agree with you, but that's not what this debate is about. I see you voted that civil equality for gays must be restricted to preserve religious liberty. Can you tell me in what ways equality for gblt people would infringe upon religious liberty?

I'm still waiting your response, Luke.

 

[Pah]

Heh, I've been expecting you to show up with this argument.

You can argue your view of history. It doesn't change the reality that for many people it IS a religious sacrament.

Marriage consists entirely of the expression of the couple's intent to be married and that intent to be recorded by government for government. That people attach other meanings to marriage does not change the core definition.

It is the basis for all of the effort to constitutionally restrict marriage. Since there are already restrictions imposed within a church for who may be married, the drive to control marriage outside the church confirms the reality of marriage as a profane, secular act

Reality is what IS and not always in concert with what people think it is.

Most, probably all, church "weddings" are after the signing of the license and therefore not part of marriage itself. It amounts to a church celebration of the already accomplished marriage. Make that celebration a sacrament as you wish.

By the way, I have served wine and bread at parities. Does that become the sacrament of communion in some people's minds?

 

[michel]

Marriage consists entirely of the expression of the couple's intent to be married and that intent to be recorded by government for government. That people attach other meanings to marriage does not change the core definition. It is the basis for all of the effort to constitutionally restrict marriage.

Reality is what IS and not always in concert with what people think it is.

Most, probably all, church "weddings" are after the signing of the license and therefore not part of marriage itself. It amounts to a church celebration of the already accomplished marriage. Make that a sacrement as you wish.

That's the point I have been trying to make all along; in the rest of Europe, the civil (necessary) signing of contracts is followed by a church wedding if wanted by the couple.

 

[Pah]

That's the point I have been trying to make all along; in the rest of Europe, the civil (necessary) signing of contracts is followed by a church wedding if wanted by the couple.

Having been married in Germany, I can attest to that. The custom was to be civilly married on a Friday (which I was) and have the church service the next day (which I did not have).

The signed contract had then to be presented to an American embassy official for the United States to recognize my marriage.

 

[Pah]

Let's be very clear about this. A sacrament is an an outward symbol of a inward spiritual act. The outward symbol of sacramental marriage is the civil marriage - the CIVIL MARRIAGE. The inward spiritual act is uniting the couple in Christ. Civil marriage is essential to the sacrament but the sacrament is not essential to the marriage.

I have only small problems with observance of a sacrament. I have a great problem with the inclusion of a church sacrament in civil law.

Marriage is a civil right. Forcing a sacrament on a civil right is an abomination to the Constitution. Freedom of religion allows for sacrament WITHIN A FAITH.

 

[Reverend Rick]

A marriage to many folks is a sacrament where our Lord and Savior is invoked for the ceremony. It is explained that the marriage is for life. Divorce can be granted, but with one exception (adultery), you cannot be remarried again. To death do you part.

It really upsets folks when marriage is trivialised. I'm not talking about Gay marriage here, I am talking about those who are not religious getting married.

You can disagree and dismiss my argument all you like, but in my state, 75% of the voters said that a marriage is between one woman and one man period.

Now, if you want to effect any change, YOU WILL RESPECT OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

Right or wrong, we are in control of the situation and as long as the state issues marriage licenses, we get to vote on the issue. Take the state out of the marriage business and you remove this obstacle.

You can agree with me or not, but this is the only way I ever see this situation changing.

Pout and call us names, it does not change anything. If you want your rights, your going to have to respect the religious right whether you like it or not. We are in control. Separate church and state and you have your problem solved.

 

[MaddLlama]

A marriage to many folks is a sacrament where our Lord and Savior is invoked for the ceremony. It is explained that the marriage is for life. Divorce can be granted, but with one exception (adultery), you cannot be remarried again. To death do you part.

It really upsets folks when marriage is trivialised. I'm not talking about Gay marriage here, I am talking about those who are not religious getting married.

You can disagree and dismiss my argument all you like, but in my state, 75% of the voters said that a marriage is between one woman and one man period.

You still haven't explained how an atheist couples calling their relationship a marriage is somehow interfering with your ability to be a Christian. Frankly, I'm not really concerned if it hurts your feelings that someone else uses a word you think somehow belongs to your group. The government has never once declared that all people have the right to never be offended by anything, and that if something offends them they have the right to try and eradicate it. Such an idea is the antithesis of free speech.
I'm sorry it offends you, but that's life.

Now, if you want to effect any change, YOU WILL RESPECT OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

Right or wrong, we are in control of the situation and as long as the state issues marriage licenses, we get to vote on the issue. Take the state out of the marriage business and you remove this obstacle.

You can agree with me or not, but this is the only way I ever see this situation changing.

Pout and call us names, it does not change anything. If you want your rights, your going to have to respect the religious right whether you like it or not. We are in control. Separate church and state and you have your problem solved.

In a democracy, I thought all the people are in control. Not just the ones you agree with. And, personally I find your statement rather threatening - we're in control, so you should do what we say or we won't let you have what you want. Are the people who agree with you the only voice that matters?

I never said I didn't respect your perspective. I just don't understand it. If it doesn't make logical sense, then why should I support it? You keep saying you want seperation of church and state. But, I see your interference in a government mandated system as a loud and clear breach of that. You can't make a law that only has a basis in religious morality.

Really, if you can prove to me that allowing gay couples to get a slip of paper from their state that says "marriage" on it is somehow infringing on your right and ability to follow your religion, then and only then will I give credence to your argument.

 

[Darkness]

Right or wrong, we are in control of the situation and as long as the state issues marriage licenses, we get to vote on the issue. Take the state out of the marriage business and you remove this obstacle.

You can agree with me or not, but this is the only way I ever see this situation changing.

Pout and call us names, it does not change anything. If you want your rights, your going to have to respect the religious right whether you like it or not. We are in control. Separate church and state and you have your problem solved.

Spoken like a true tyrant. Take peoples freedoms away from them, control their lives because my invisible God says we should. We are in Control! :sarcastic

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It really upsets folks when marriage is trivialised. I'm not talking about Gay marriage here, I am talking about those who are not religious getting married.

Your suggestion that the marriage of non-religious people "trivializes marriage" is very offensive. I also wonder to what extent it is true, especially considering the fact that the Barna Research Group found that divorce rates among conservative Christians are significantly higher than among atheists and agnostics. ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm )

And since when did "lots of people agree with me" become a valid argument in debate? Furthermore, did the civil rights movement have to respect those in favor of discrimination and segregation? I think not, I think instead they got people to change their minds by spreading awareness and getting people to THINK about the issues (think, as in, putting more brain power into analyzing an issue than the brain power it takes to figure out that lots of people agree with your current position).

 

[McBell]

Heh, I've been expecting you to show up with this argument.

You can argue your view of history. It doesn't change the reality that for many people it IS a religious sacrament.

People can and do add all manner of hype and window dressing to the legal contract.
That does not mean that because they add all the religious window dressing to a LEGAL contract, that they have some kind of monopoly on the words used for said legal contract.

The banning of same sex marriage is merely religion trying to control a legal matter.
Plain and simple.

 

[McBell]

A marriage to many folks is a sacrament where our Lord and Savior is invoked for the ceremony. It is explained that the marriage is for life. Divorce can be granted, but with one exception (adultery), you cannot be remarried again. To death do you part.

Really?
Sounds to me that ya'll really need to clean up your own back yard.

It really upsets folks when marriage is trivialised. I'm not talking about Gay marriage here, I am talking about those who are not religious getting married.

This I find to be an issue of either pride, ego or both.
Marriage is a legal contract.
All the religious window dressing you add to it is irrelevant to the legality of the contract.

Sounds like you have set claims to a word and are now grasping at straws to keep a claim you have lost, if you ever had it to begin with, long long ago.

You can disagree and dismiss my argument all you like, but in my state, 75% of the voters said that a marriage is between one woman and one man period.

To bad for you we do not live in a democracy.
We live in a republic.

Now, if you want to effect any change, YOU WILL RESPECT OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

Wrong.
Respect is something that is to be earned.
Your demanding of it actually diminishes it.

Right or wrong, we are in control of the situation and as long as the state issues marriage licenses, we get to vote on the issue. Take the state out of the marriage business and you remove this obstacle.

Until your state and a state that disagrees clashes.
Then the Federal Government has to step in and set things straight.
Now since marriage is a legal contract and there is no legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage, what do you think is going to happen?

You can agree with me or not, but this is the only way I ever see this situation changing.

I just explained another way.
Though you likely wont like it because you won't be able to save face in the situation I presented.

Pout and call us names, it does not change anything. If you want your rights, your going to have to respect the religious right whether you like it or not. We are in control. Separate church and state and you have your problem solved.

You have yet to show how marriage is a religious thing.
It is not.
All your religion has done is tack all manner of window dressing to a legal contract.

So it is in fact the religious who are trying to force religion onto a secular legal contract.
Yes, let us separate church and state.
It is high time that the church is flat out told it has no monopoly on a legal contract.

 

[lilithu]

Respect is something that is to be earned.

You two are mirror images of each other.

 

[Pah]

A marriage to many folks is a sacrament where our Lord and Savior is invoked for the ceremony. It is explained that the marriage is for life. Divorce can be granted, but with one exception (adultery), you cannot be remarried again. To death do you part.

It really upsets folks when marriage is trivialised. I'm not talking about Gay marriage here, I am talking about those who are not religious getting married.

You can disagree and dismiss my argument all you like, but in my state, 75% of the voters said that a marriage is between one woman and one man period.

Now, if you want to effect any change, YOU WILL RESPECT OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

Right or wrong, we are in control of the situation and as long as the state issues marriage licenses, we get to vote on the issue. Take the state out of the marriage business and you remove this obstacle.

You can agree with me or not, but this is the only way I ever see this situation changing.

Pout and call us names, it does not change anything. If you want your rights, your going to have to respect the religious right whether you like it or not. We are in control. Separate church and state and you have your problem solved.

Sickening! Just plain sickening.

 

[lilithu]

First of all, you really should have started a new thread for this rant.

Right or wrong, we are in control of the situation and as long as the state issues marriage licenses, we get to vote on the issue.

What are you going to do when the situation turns? That's the problem with relying on "might makes right."

Separate church and state and you have your problem solved.

So go do it then. You have just as much to lose here Rick, if not more. Look at what direction the tide is moving. There will be equality, one way or the other. So if you want to "protect" marriage, you had better get crackin.

And I must point out that even if marriage is taken out of the civil realm, if same sex couples want to get married, all they have to do is come to a UU church. :rainbow1:

 

[Reverend Rick]

I said this too. Of course Gay couples can get married in the UU church. There is no monopoly here. No one can vote on what a church does. Thats why we should separate church and state.

 

[MaddLlama]

I said this too. Of course Gay couples can get married in the UU church. There is no monopoly here. No one can vote on what a church does. Thats why we should separate church and state.

How exactly does telling the government that only religious groups are allowed to use a certain word separate church and state (to me that sounds like the church imposing its will on the state), how is such a tthing not a monopoly (since you're telling the government it's not allowed to use a word), and I'll also ask again how precisely doing this protects your religious liberty? How does an atheist getting a "marriage" license from the state impede your ability to follow your religion? Because if it doesn't, then you have no argument at all. And then, why should any of us accept it as a compromise on the issue? Do we just accept your grasping at straws reasoning because you make threats about your group somehow being "in control of" the government?

 

[McBell]

You two are mirror images of each other.

Please elaborate.

 

[Green Gaia]

Someone poke me when ya'll decide to get back on topic....

 

[MaddLlama]

Someone poke me when ya'll decide to get back on topic....

Well, I'm trying but nobody wants to answer my question.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm against gay marriage, but not against civil unions between gays. I have gay relatives with whom I'm close, but my traditionalists, religious, and social ideals are not so easily swayed. Personally, as long as they don't call it marriage, and as long as the terms husband and wife stay on the hetro side; they can do whatever they want.

I said it; don't kill me

Well that's your opinion. I certainly don't agree with you, but that's not what this debate is about. I see you voted that civil equality for gays must be restricted to preserve religious liberty. Can you tell me in what ways equality for gblt people would infringe upon religious liberty?

I'm still waiting for your response, Luke.