Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Drolefille]

Oh? Really!:areyoucra

Yeah I'm not breaching my boyfriend's marriage "covenant" because having an open marriage was a condition of the marriage itself.

I've been accused of worse than being an adulteress and not terribly concerned with the personal attack as I invited it.

 

[Alceste]

Not when there are religious gays who want a church marriage. It doesn't go far enough, because it still dehumanizes a minority as not being fully human -- that is, capable of being married, like other human beings. It's still showing complicity in the systemic violence.

But it's a start.

I agree with you, but I think that for a person who is coming from total legal discrimination against homosexual partnerships, civil unions that eliminate the most painful and damaging effects of discrimination are far enough for a first step, even if that's where they remain for the rest of their lives.

Those who want to change their church's position on gay marriage would be acting within the church, so it's not really an issue when it comes to one's opinion on the government's role in the issue. A gay couple who wants a church marriage can switch denominations, and move to a UU church (for example). That's not too much to ask, I don't think. Moving to another state or country to be able to live your life in peace is too much to ask.

 

[NIX]

Yeah I'm not breaching my boyfriend's marriage "covenant" because having an open marriage was a condition of the marriage itself.

I've been accused of worse than being an adulteress and not terribly concerned with the personal attack as I invited it.

Well... but... no! They can't do that! They have redefined (religious people's current preferred definition of) marriage-- and yet they are still legally married! :149:

Somebody needs to revoke their licence.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah I'm not breaching my boyfriend's marriage "covenant" because having an open marriage was a condition of the marriage itself.

I've been accused of worse than being an adulteress and not terribly concerned with the personal attack as I invited it.

We didn't specify sexual exclusivity in our wedding ceremony, since my hubby is poly and I am undecided (for me, it completely depends on the circumstances - I'm happy to deal with these issues as they come up, as long as there's no lying). Our "covenant" is more about building a life together as a family, treating each other with gentleness and compassion, growing together, etc. It's not about playing policeman over one another's private parts. Although that too can be fun.

 

[Alceste]

Well... but... no! They can't do that! They have redefined (religious people's current preferred definition of) marriage-- and yet they are still legally married! :149:

Somebody needs to revoke their licence.

Come to think of it, we "redefined marriage" too! We purposely said "as long as love shall last" instead of "until death do us part". And we took out the crap about obedience, and forsaking all others, just out of pure practicality. It's not that we don't take our relationship seriously, it's only that we take our promises seriously. The first step to keeping your promises is knowing what you can reasonably promise and what you cant.

 

[NIX]

Come to think of it, we "redefined marriage" too! We purposely said "as long as love shall last" instead of "until death do us part". And we took out the crap about obedience, and forsaking all others, just out of pure practicality. It's not that we don't take our relationship seriously, it's only that we take our promises seriously. The first step to keeping your promises is knowing what you can reasonably promise and what you cant.

But how can this be?! Do you mean to tell me that couples define their own marriages for themselves? :cover:

'Traditional marriage enforcement' has far more problems on their hands than they seem to realize. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

But how can this be?! Do you mean to tell me that couples define their own marriages for themselves? :cover:

'Traditional marriage enforcement' has far more problems on their hands than they seem to realize. :yes:

Good point, perhaps people who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons should stop comparing gay marriages to their own immaculate, sinless unions, and start comparing heathen heterosexual marriages to heathen gay marriages. Why should my husband and I be legally permitted to debauch, sin fornicate and commit adultery to our hearts' content, while our gay friends and family are punished by the government for their sexual immorality?

 

[NIX]

Come to think of it, we "redefined marriage" too! We purposely said "as long as love shall last" instead of "until death do us part". And we took out the crap about obedience, and forsaking all others, just out of pure practicality. It's not that we don't take our relationship seriously, it's only that we take our promises seriously. The first step to keeping your promises is knowing what you can reasonably promise and what you cant.

Seriously though, I totally agree with you. If more people made promises they could actually keep, there would be far fewer broken promises, and probably a good handful less broken partnerships.

 

[NIX]

Good point, perhaps people who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons should stop comparing gay marriages to their own immaculate, sinless unions, and start comparing heathen heterosexual marriages to heathen gay marriages. Why should my husband and I be legally permitted to debauch, sin fornicate and commit adultery to our hearts' content, while our gay friends and family are punished by the government for their sexual immorality?

Exactly! If you're gunna let some sinning heathens defile marriage, how is it not discrimination to disallow other sinning heathens to defile marriage as well?

Free and equal rights to sinning, defiling heathens under the law!!!

 

[Maya3]

Marriage come in many shapes and forms and always has. Nothing is being redefined.
My husband and I have decided not to have children for example. Low and Behold we still have sex.
But marriage is for procreation so really we should get our licence revoked too!

Maya

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Exactly! If you're gunna let some sinning heathens defile marriage, how is it not discrimination to disallow other sinning heathens to defile marriage as well?

It seems I have a busy week ahead of me!

 

[Storm]

I am willing however to support civil rights for any person regardless of his sexual orientation.

Except you're not. By you're own admission, you vote to deny civil rights at every opportunity.

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.

We're not redefining anything, we're asking that a secular contract not be denied us. If you want to bring "God's blessing" into it, why do you also deny religious equality to those churches that want to marry same sex couples?

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?

Honestly? No. Separate but equal is never actually equal. Until we're allowed full participation in the same legal institution, I will not be satisfied. Making a new category for same sex pairings is not only demeaning, but guarantees vulnerability when the next batch of bigots decides to repeal it.

I am asking with a sincere heart. I genuinly would like to reduce the bigotry you see in the church.

This is about bigotry in the law, not the church.

But as fr as giving my vote to redefine marriage, I just don't see how I can.

Fine. But spare us the platitudes about how you love us and don't want to hurt us.

As far as remaining nuetral, well this is an option, but I think that would be passivly supporting redefining marriage, right?

It would indeed. You pretty much have to pick a side: will you be for or against equal treatment under the law? The choice is yours.

 

[Storm]

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?

Well, for a start, there isn't a civil union in any of the states that provides all the rights and benefits of marriage. Typically, it explicitly grants whichever hot button rights are most divisive in that state.

Here's a good article on the legal differences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, for a start, there isn't a civil union in any of the states that provides all the rights and benefits of marriage. Typically, it explicitly grants whichever hot button rights are most divisive in that state.

Here's a good article on the legal differences.

And even if you did make the rights exactly the same domestically, the mere fact that the names are different can affect how the relationship will be recognized abroad. There are plenty of countries that recognize foreign same-sex marriages, but recognizing foreign civil unions is a lot more hit-and-miss.

 

[sojourner]

I agree with you, but I think that for a person who is coming from total legal discrimination against homosexual partnerships, civil unions that eliminate the most painful and damaging effects of discrimination are far enough for a first step, even if that's where they remain for the rest of their lives.

Those who want to change their church's position on gay marriage would be acting within the church, so it's not really an issue when it comes to one's opinion on the government's role in the issue. A gay couple who wants a church marriage can switch denominations, and move to a UU church (for example). That's not too much to ask, I don't think. Moving to another state or country to be able to live your life in peace is too much to ask.

Yeah, but legalities aren't her bugaboo. religious morality is her bugaboo, and she's using legality to assuage her discomfort. she's not saying, "Gays can't be legally married because it poses a big problem for our system of law." She's saying, "Gays can't be legally married because God says that they way they're made is inherently sinful."

I've just really got a big problem with that stance for a couple of reasons:
1) It assumes a degree of finality (God said it, and there's nothing to be done about it) that places her position on the high ground of being "indisputable."
2) It places the "problem" within the sphere of one's ground of being, rather than on a discrepancy of law. It personalizes an unresolvable wrongdoing.

Her position dehumanizes gays (which I've asserted all along). it represents a systemic dehumanization (that of "religious morality") that is problematic for any homosexual who is a religious person.

I don't know how religious you are; I see from your profile that you're "Taoish." I don't know enough about "Taoishism" to know how "brand-loyal" they typically are. Many Christians are extremely "brand-loyal." It makes a real difference to us whether we call ourselves "Roman Catholic" or "Southern Baptist" or "Episcopalian," and it just is a big deal when we're chased away from our religious identity. "Changing denominations" is an unacceptable in many cases, and represents one of the tools of identified systemic violence: That of separation.

I agree that there are two fronts that need to be addressed -- just as there were two fronts in the equal rights movement: Legal and religious. Since the poster's ground of disagreement is religious, I don't see how a legal solution can be an assuagement for couples who are religious.

 

[sojourner]

It seems I have a busy week ahead of me!

[Rubs hands -- eyes gleaming]
"So many temptations; so little time!"

 

[sojourner]

Honestly? No. Separate but equal is never actually equal. Until we're allowed full participation in the same legal institution, I will not be satisfied. Making a new category for same sex pairings is not only demeaning, but guarantees vulnerability when the next batch of bigots decides to repeal it.

Thank you! It is absolutely unacceptable, just as black drinking fountains and black schools were unacceptable. For the religious-of-heart, consider that Jesus didn't only sit down at the table with acceptable folk. Jesus ate with tax collectors, sinners and prostitutes. Jesus touched the untouchable and spoke to the unapproachable. In other words: Jesus included them fully and equally -- and he broke religious law when he did it! Why can't many of his followers "go and do likewise???"

 

[Jainarayan]

NJ governor Chris Christie has stated emphatically he will not sign a same-sex marriage bill that comes across his desk. This is because he is a devout Roman Catholic. Not because he does not feel the time is right, public opinion runs against it (it doesn't in NJ), but rather because of his RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Now, he is using his religious convictions to prevent the enacting of a law that is written and passed by the state legislature. In a roundabout way, imo this is a violation of the First Amendment. Whereas Congress cannot make a law to establish or endorse religion, the governor is using religion to NOT make a law. Yes, the legislature could muster a 2/3 vote to override him, but politics and taxpayer money being what they are, it's probably not the right time to do it this way. We can let the state supreme court sort it out as they did in ruling in favor of civil unions.

Now, a thought occurred to me with regard to voting MY convictions. Because of my humanitarian and legalistic, not religious convictions, I will not vote for Gov. Christie when he runs for re-election. You see, the knife cuts both ways. He is using his office as a public servant as a platform for his own religious and personal beliefs, flouting the needs and desires of his constituents. And I am using my convictions to help boot him out of office.

 

[Lady B]

NJ governor Chris Christie has stated emphatically he will not sign a same-sex marriage bill that comes across his desk. This is because he is a devout Roman Catholic. Not because he does not feel the time is right, public opinion runs against it (it doesn't in NJ), but rather because of his RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Now, he is using his religious convictions to prevent the enacting of a law that is written and passed by the state legislature. In a roundabout way, imo this is a violation of the First Amendment. Whereas Congress cannot make a law to establish or endorse religion, the governor is using religion to NOT make a law. Yes, the legislature could muster a 2/3 vote to override him, but politics and taxpayer money being what they are, it's probably not the right time to do it this way. We can let the state supreme court sort it out as they did in ruling in favor of civil unions.

Now, a thought occurred to me with regard to voting MY convictions. Because of my humanitarian and legalistic, not religious convictions, I will not vote for Gov. Christie when he runs for re-election. You see, the knife cuts both ways. He is using his office as a public servant as a platform for his own religious and personal beliefs, flouting the needs and desires of his constituents. And I am using my convictions to help boot him out of office.

I agree with you 100% here. If the voters had their say, then that is it. Government cannot intervene and I would be on board in this fight

 

[Lady B]

Oh I read this wrong, It hasn't been voted on yet?