Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[MysticSang'ha]

Well That passage of scripture is pertaining to taxes. Some of the people around Christ didn't think it fair they were made to pay taxes. And so Christ admonished them. I do not see the correlation between this and my vote unless you are saying I should vote without any obligations to God's word. If that is the case, I do not agree. Life for a Christian is not the happiness in worldly matters, but matters of the world should point us in a Godly direction.We must pursue heavenly things. God must be a part of all my decisions, ideas, goals, pursuits.

I understand the side asking me to just be passive and vote neutral and not push my beliefs on others. I get it. But I am not sure redefining marriage is a good thing to do. I am willing however to support civil rights for any person regardless of his sexual orientation. That seems to be the main complaint and it is valid.But is it necessary to redefine marriage in order to attain these civil rights? That is my question now.That and If marriage is redefined to admit gays can it also be redefined by anything. And I guess my question is this, If Marriage is ordained by God and a Godly concept, why do you need to belong to it apart from the civil rights gained in such unions? Are you desiring to legitimize your unions with God's blessing? or is it really for worldly pursuits such as the civil rights you can't get otherwise.

Marriage for reasons of love and intimacy are still radically new concepts given how the purpose of marriage for ages and ages were to determine transfer of property and wealth. It is why bloodlines and heritage were talks of premarital discussions.....which were typically arranged by the family elders.......and that if a couple wasn't planning on having children they typically were not allowed to marry.

For centuries. Therefore, my point is that the evolution of civil marriage has changed and altered for many many years including the evolution into this century with women's property and voting rights as well as the overthrow of anti-miscegenation laws beginning with Loving vs. Virginia.

So what if there is a new proposal that proposes gay couples be given all rights that hetro marriages are given? Like social security, health insurance,inheritance, power of attorney, medical and finacial and custody of any children. would that be satisfactory?

Of course. Problem is, there hasn't been any satisfactory solution that grants all the same rights, protections, and benefits that straight marriages offer without the title "Marriage" attached to it.

I tend to argue from the standpoint that if marriage were supposed to be narrowed to the definition derived from the church Sacrament, then the state of Illinois probably wouldn't have allowed the wedding ceremony or the marriage license to be issued to me and my husband, who do not attend any Chrisitan church, and who was married by a lesbian minister.

According to the church, we're both apostates AND atheists. And yet, the rest of the country recognizes our hetero marriage while refusing to recognize the union of same sex unions.

I am asking with a sincere heart. I genuinly would like to reduce the bigotry you see in the church. We have debated for many hours now and neither of our sides can really comprimise our positions,or can we? My comprimise would be to help fight for your civil rights without condoning your sexual unions. I think I can do that and with God's blessing.But as fr as giving my vote to redefine marriage, I just don't see how I can.As far as remaining nuetral, well this is an option, but I think that would be passivly supporting redefining marriage, right?

My suggestion is to maintain your position within your congregation. Keep your traditional idea of what marriage means - no adultery, no fornication, only between a man and a woman - which I would support your congregation to hold to your collective values. That is not a neutral position. As a fellow citizen, with your desire to fight for our civil rights without condoning our sexual unions with the same sex, take the same position as you would to fight discrimination in the workplace, in finding homes, in education, and to fight to protect GLTBQs against bullying and violent hate crimes.

 

[Lady B]

Marriage for reasons of love and intimacy are still radically new concepts given how the purpose of marriage for ages and ages were to determine transfer of property and wealth. It is why bloodlines and heritage were talks of premarital discussions.....which were typically arranged by the family elders.......and that if a couple wasn't planning on having children they typically were not allowed to marry.

For centuries. Therefore, my point is that the evolution of civil marriage has changed and altered for many many years including the evolution into this century with women's property and voting rights as well as the overthrow of anti-miscegenation laws beginning with Loving vs. Virginia.


Of course. Problem is, there hasn't been any satisfactory solution that grants all the same rights, protections, and benefits that straight marriages offer without the title "Marriage" attached to it.

I tend to argue from the standpoint that if marriage were supposed to be narrowed to the definition derived from the church Sacrament, then the state of Illinois probably wouldn't have allowed the wedding ceremony or the marriage license to be issued to me and my husband, who do not attend any Chrisitan church, and who was married by a lesbian minister.

According to the church, we're both apostates AND atheists. And yet, the rest of the country recognizes our hetero marriage while refusing to recognize the union of same sex unions.



My suggestion is to maintain your position within your congregation. Keep your traditional idea of what marriage means - no adultery, no fornication, only between a man and a woman - which I would support your congregation to hold to your collective values. That is not a neutral position. As a fellow citizen, with your desire to fight for our civil rights without condoning our sexual unions with the same sex, take the same position as you would to fight discrimination in the workplace, in finding homes, in education, and to fight to protect GLTBQs against bullying and violent hate crimes.

hmmmmmmm....I think this is a possibility for me, However I would like marriage to remain intact and not redefined, because of my religious beliefs.I would not be opposed to a new institute or contract of civil unions allowing you all your basic civil rights.That is comprimise enough?

just curious but how do you have a husband and your gay? Ummmm scratch that, I read it more carefully, oops...

 

[MysticSang'ha]

hmmmmmmm....I think this is a possibility for me, However I would like marriage to remain intact and not redefined, because of my religious beliefs.I would not be opposed to a new institute or contract of civil unions allowing you all your basic civil rights.That is comprimise enough?

just curious but how do you have a husband and your gay?

I am bisexual. I was in a deep relationship with a woman back in my 20s when the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced under the Clinton administration in the mid-1990's, which to this day still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth since she and I were so devoted to each other.

I ask for the same freedom because if for some reason my current marriage were to ever dissolve or end due to my husband's death (heaven forbid), I would want the same freedom as any other queer to enter into a same-sex legal union fully recognized by the rest of the country if I do in the future meet and fall in love with another woman.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ummmm scratch that, I read it more carefully, oops...

No problem.

 

[Lady B]

Ok can I ask a few questions about the current civil unions.?

do they require a divorce to end them?

what is missing as far as civil rights are concerned in comparison to traditional marriage?

As it is now are properties combined and then devided upon ending the union?

 

[crocusj]

Your vote DOES impact same sex couples. Thanks to you and others like you, they don't get automatic custody of their own kids when their partner dies. They can't make decisions about the health care of their ailing life partners, and in many cases can't even stay with them in the hospital while they die. They don't automatically inherit the property they have built with their partners. In many cases, they can't adopt children. They may be denied rental housing because the law defines them as "room-mates" as opposed to spouses. Up thread, someone indicated that there are over a thousand rights heterosexual couples enjoy through legal marriage that same sex couples are being denied by your vote.

Up thread, you also indicated that you don't believe anyone should be denied equal rights, and quoted a Bible verse which said we should stick to what we know is right regardless of what authorities say. You have written that you know it is wrong to deny equal rights to anyone. So why not stop voting to deny equal rights to homosexuals, in accordance with your own conscience, instead of voting to perpetrate emotional violence and legal discrimination against them, just to go along with the popular opinion in your church?

This^^^
My mother had to change her religion (denomination) in order to marry my father. As luck would have it, they were able to define marraige for themselves (love) as oppposed to religious marraige (convenience). It is clear, as in clear, that if you vote to deny someone equal rights then that is exactly what you are doing. Why you would vote to deny something to others that you have yourself is beyond me. There is nothing more to say.

 

[Maya3]

No, marriage is not being redefined. Straight people can still get married. No straight people have to get divorced from their current partner and marry a member of the same sex. It is still exactly the same.
All that will happen is that more people can get legally married, that is it.

Separate but equal is not equal. It was not equal when black people had to drink from separate fountains, go to separate schools and go to separate restaurants either.
They still had water fountains they still had restaurants they still had schools, but it was not equal. It was discriminatory and wrong.

My husband and I have been married for 18 years, we had a two minute civil union at city hall. No one told us that we are not married but unionized. It they did it would be unequal and unfair.
Same goes for gay people.

And by the way our marriage is in no shape or form affected by other people who love each other and are getting married.

Maya

 

[Alceste]

Ok can I ask a few questions about the current civil unions.?

do they require a divorce to end them?

what is missing as far as civil rights are concerned in comparison to traditional marriage?

As it is now are properties combined and then devided upon ending the union?

May I direct your attention to this post, containing my earlier answer to this question.

Just as the legal category of "married couple" brings with it whatever legal rights and privileges society chooses to offer or allow, the legal category of "civil unions" also does. Using two different terms creates two different legal categories, so the legal rights and privileges still can be different. In some states and countries, the two categories have similar or identical rights. In others, civil unions have some legal rights but not others. So, it would be up to your state government to determine what the difference would be.

 

[Dingbat]

Marriage isn't a damn religious institution in the first place it is a secular legal contract in regards to property rights and inheritance of wealth.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, that would be a good middle ground. Many states accord homosexual couples most or all of the rights accorded to heterosexual couples through legal "civil unions". If you are in the camp where you don't believe in legal discrimination, but still have reservations about changing the concept of "marriage", that is the position for you!

Hi Alceste.... Hang on.... I'm learning something here. Does your post mean that many states recognise civil unions (partnerships?) and give these similar status to marriage, and it is only same-sex marriage that they refuse? And do all states recognise civil-unions between homosexuals, regardless of which state performed them?

 

[oldbadger]

Ok now here is a start...help Me to understand how civil unions differ from the traditional marriage, and do we need to redefine marriage to legalize these civil unions? To clarify.. In many states there are laws that protect couples after they have lived together as man and wife for a period of time, I believe Canada has this law and you are even required to go through the courts to annul these unions and divide properties. I believe, don't quote me, but these unions are given the same rights as traditional marriage. So maybe something like this could be proposed nationally, without redefining marriage or requiring religious involvement at all. Maybe?

Hi Lady B. Excuse me highlighting part of your post. In the UK we call these partnerships 'common-law.... husbands' and 'common-law wives'. But they do not have the same rights as wedded couples. It's much better to go to the registry office and get married....... a nice day out!!

 

[Lady B]

Hi Lady B. Excuse me highlighting part of your post. In the UK we call these partnerships 'common-law.... husbands' and 'common-law wives'. But they do not have the same rights as wedded couples. It's much better to go to the registry office and get married....... a nice day out!!

Thankyouuuuuuuu, I was sooo trying to find the word (common law) but I could not for the life of me spit it out, so i defined it instead.

 

[tempter]

I know not all of them do and there are many other religions that are the same. I am just wondering why a minority of Christians hate gays?

I heard this song by macklemore last week and I thought it was beautifully written and a great example as to what I am asking;

[youtube]hlVBg7_08n0[/youtube]
YouTube

Christians like to tweak the definitions of words to suit their needs (hate, good, evil, bad, truth, etc). In this case, "hate" is the word they're searching to re-define.
In my past decades of experience as a christian, I wouldn't say that most christians hate gays if hate's defined as "wishing death/harm on someone" (though there are many that do just that and are fine admitting it). That said, I'm not sure what it's called when a group of people (christians) give money to groups of people who try to "cure gay", try to make gay marriage illegal, try to make civil unions illegal, try to make the lives of gay couples as hard as possible by denying them rights, etc. when being gay has absolutely no negative impact on them personally...?
To me, that seems like, at least, fear, which always (eventually) leads to hate.

 

[Drolefille]

hmmmmmmm....I think this is a possibility for me, However I would like marriage to remain intact and not redefined, because of my religious beliefs.I would not be opposed to a new institute or contract of civil unions allowing you all your basic civil rights.That is comprimise enough?

just curious but how do you have a husband and your gay? Ummmm scratch that, I read it more carefully, oops...

Think of it this way. The sacrament of marriage -the religious concept of marriage is unchanged by laws that allow same-sex couples to get married civilly.

What is voted on is civil marriage. Civil marriage has no religious component inherent in it. Voting to allow people to get civilly married is allowing them to enter into a legal contract. Religious marriage is still the sole arena of religious bodies.

Civil unions are kind of hit and miss. They're a "middle ground" but the problem with them is that most of our laws are written around the concept of marriage and civil unions don't quite meet that mark. Additionally who wants to be "unionized" rather than "married."

Just as we don't require a church and a white dress and a Christian pastor for a civil marriage, we shouldn't require Christian standards for civil marriage.

If you were to vote for same-sex marriage, you would not be stating that you approve of same-sex couples getting married as a Christian, you would be stating that you do not feel it is right for you to prevent same-sex couples from getting civilly married because of your religious beliefs.

I know I've been angry in this thread, but this topic is personal to me. It directly affects and hurts those I love and care about and I see the pain in the people I don't know personally as well. Imagine adopting a child and not being able to have your name on the birth certificate. Imagine caring for your spouse through death and then having their family challenge the estate on the grounds that you weren't really married.

Voting against same-sex marriage does not change the number of gay couples out there. It doesn't remove homosexuality or lessen any number of sins- those couples still love each other. What it does is remove the legal protections and recognition that these families need to visit each other in the hospital or pick their kids up from school.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well That passage of scripture is pertaining to taxes. Some of the people around Christ didn't think it fair they were made to pay taxes. And so Christ admonished them.

So you think Christ spoke literally and specifically of paying taxes to Caesar? What then of his admonishment to gouge out one's eye if it is a source of sin? Or to cut off one's hand and cast it into the fire, rather than be thrown body and soul into the fire? What about selling all you have and giving the proceeds to the poor to be a true follower of him? Where is the line between metaphor and example, and literalness?

 

[Penumbra]

Hi Alceste.... Hang on.... I'm learning something here. Does your post mean that many states recognise civil unions (partnerships?) and give these similar status to marriage, and it is only same-sex marriage that they refuse? And do all states recognise civil-unions between homosexuals, regardless of which state performed them?

It's a patchwork problem.

The federal government does not recognize same sex marriages due to the Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 1990's to discriminate against homosexuals.

Each state, however, can define marriage in their area which will allow some rights to them. Some states allow same sex marriage. Some don't allow marriage but they allow civil unions with some of the rights. Others don't allow civil unions or marriages at all. Some of them even put into their state constitutions that civil unions are not allowed. They differ as to what they recognize between states.

Heterosexual married people don't have any of those issues.

 

[Jainarayan]

There's no church involved in a legal marriage either.

People can get married here without any involvement with any church at all.

:yes: Here too. All marriages are civil unions. The word marriage has been thrown around and used the way a brand name like Kleenex is used for any facial tissue, or Q-tip is used for any cotton swab. Moreover, words and their meanings change. The word marriage is used for more concepts than just the union of a man and woman. And this is what people are getting their shorts in a twist over... a word. But they don't know enough to know that's all it is... a word.

 

[Lady B]

Think of it this way. The sacrament of marriage -the religious concept of marriage is unchanged by laws that allow same-sex couples to get married civilly.

What is voted on is civil marriage. Civil marriage has no religious component inherent in it. Voting to allow people to get civilly married is allowing them to enter into a legal contract. Religious marriage is still the sole arena of religious bodies.

Civil unions are kind of hit and miss. They're a "middle ground" but the problem with them is that most of our laws are written around the concept of marriage and civil unions don't quite meet that mark. Additionally who wants to be "unionized" rather than "married."

Just as we don't require a church and a white dress and a Christian pastor for a civil marriage, we shouldn't require Christian standards for civil marriage.

If you were to vote for same-sex marriage, you would not be stating that you approve of same-sex couples getting married as a Christian, you would be stating that you do not feel it is right for you to prevent same-sex couples from getting civilly married because of your religious beliefs.

I know I've been angry in this thread, but this topic is personal to me. It directly affects and hurts those I love and care about and I see the pain in the people I don't know personally as well. Imagine adopting a child and not being able to have your name on the birth certificate. Imagine caring for your spouse through death and then having their family challenge the estate on the grounds that you weren't really married.

Voting against same-sex marriage does not change the number of gay couples out there. It doesn't remove homosexuality or lessen any number of sins- those couples still love each other. What it does is remove the legal protections and recognition that these families need to visit each other in the hospital or pick their kids up from school.

Yes you have been angry and I understand your anger,I do.I did state at the beginning of my entering I was here to try and work through this.And that it is also very close to home for me now as well and I must find a way. I think I have found a way to at least not be a hindrance to your cause without compromising my beliefs.I need to pray and meditate on this a while and think over all the points you and others have made throughout this debate. I won't back down on my beliefs That homosexuality is forbidden by God but you are correct that the civil union ballot will not keep this from happening and may save some kids being ripped out of their mothers or fathers arms in the event of death, which is the vision that breaks my heart.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ok can I ask a few questions about the current civil unions.?

do they require a divorce to end them?

what is missing as far as civil rights are concerned in comparison to traditional marriage?

As it is now are properties combined and then devided upon ending the union?

1. Yes.

2. Almost 1,100 rights are missing, including Social Security survivor benefits, automatic inheritance. Go here Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. See #1. And it depepnds on the state divorce and custody laws.

 

[Drolefille]

Yes you have been angry and I understand your anger,I do.I did state at the beginning of my entering I was here to try and work through this.And that it is also very close to home for me now as well and I must find a way. I think I have found a way to at least not be a hindrance to your cause without compromising my beliefs.I need to pray and meditate on this a while and think over all the points you and others have made throughout this debate. I won't back down on my beliefs That homosexuality is forbidden by God but you are correct that the civil union ballot will not keep this from happening and may save some kids being ripped out of their mothers or fathers arms in the event of death, which is the vision that breaks my heart.

I don't ask that you change your beliefs, although I do hope that you will have an open mind to other interpretations of the Bible, all I ask is that you do think about it, and pray about it, and not impose your beliefs on others.