Freedom, Equality, and gay marriage

[FanaticStudy]

Jews don't marry? Muslims? Chinese? Athiests? Hindus? Are you serious? By the logic that gays shouldn't marry based on religion, neither should agnostics or Jimmy Baker.

I know people of different religions marry, but as far as I know, gay people can't be married in Islam or Judaism either? Thought it was the same for all abrahamic religions?

As I said, I have no issue with gay people getting the same societal rights, but make a new ritual for them that doesn't tamper with traditions almost 2000 years old.

 

[averageJOE]

I know people of different religions marry, but as far as I know, gay people can't be married in Islam or Judaism either? Thought it was the same for all abrahamic religions?

As I said, I have no issue with gay people getting the same societal rights, but make a new ritual for them that doesn't tamper with traditions almost 2000 years old.

But as it was already explained the "religious ritual" part is not what is in question. In fact, religion does not bind a marriage, government does. You can have whatever "religious ritual" you want, but it will mean nothing without a legal document. It's the law that needs to be changed. In regards to marriage religion is irrelevant.

 

[NIX]

I disagree, I'm not Christian myself, but the act of marriage in the western world is a christian ritual, and as such, should not be tampered with.

If gay people want to be united under a ritual, I suggest they find a religion that doesn't loathe and expel them.

I understand this is harsh words, but the reality is, why would you associate yourself with religion and or organizations that largely feel negative towards your sexual orientation?
Just seems self-destructive to me.

And for the record, I endorse and fully accept gay people living happily together, but I can understand why marriage is not allowed, as tampering with specific religious rituals kind of goes against the entire point.

Whatever else anyone 'considers' or fancies 'marriage' to be- it IS a legal contract, granted and recognized by the govt. - existing in accordance with other governmental laws, allowances and options granted ONLY to couples who have legally entered into said marriage contract. To say that SOME couples can opt for govt. benefits and options not available to other couples is a CLEAR lack of equality, as some citizens are favored and others denied.

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

Let's see, a country that does not allow a binding contract between two people, which is legal for most people of consentual age, should be considered reguardless to my own views and feelings, as an unfair act of equality of life. Its under the arguement of constitution.

 

[darkendless]

It is very concerning that many people worldwide think that marriage is ONLY religious.

I wouldn't get married in a church if my life depended on it.

 

[Caladan]

I know people of different religions marry, but as far as I know, gay people can't be married in Islam or Judaism either? Thought it was the same for all abrahamic religions?

Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism do approve of same sex marriage.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

But as it was already explained the "religious ritual" part is not what is in question. In fact, religion does not bind a marriage, government does. You can have whatever "religious ritual" you want, but it will mean nothing without a legal document. It's the law that needs to be changed. In regards to marriage religion is irrelevant.

^This.

I live in Maryland, where same sex marriage was passed, but then went to referendum, so it will be on our ballot this November.

Our law, and I'm assuming this would be the same for other states with similar same sex marriage provisions, explicitly says that a Church does not have to perform a same sex marriage ceremony if it goes against their doctrine. No one is trying to change the religious meaning of marriage, this is about civil marriage only, a legal status.

Maryland Ballot Question 6: "Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs."

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Just as a note, not all religions have ceremonies for marriage, not all religions see marriage as some sort of divine sacrament. Buddhism is one of those religions where marriage is solely a civil contract, with nothing religious too it. You can get a member of the clergy to bless a marriage, but there's no ceremonies for it, Buddhist marriage ceremonies are whatever culture you belong to.

 

[Draka]

I know people of different religions marry, but as far as I know, gay people can't be married in Islam or Judaism either? Thought it was the same for all abrahamic religions?

As I said, I have no issue with gay people getting the same societal rights, but make a new ritual for them that doesn't tamper with traditions almost 2000 years old.

Abrahamic religions don't have a monopoly on marriage though. That's not to even mention what Caladan pointed out about Reform and Conservative Judaism. Non-Abrahamic religions have been doing the whole marriage thing long before Abrahamic religions arrived on the scene. Why should certain Abrahamic ones get the final say-so now? Not to mention, it's a LEGAL union we're talking about, sanctioned by the government of a country in the first place. Whether or not it takes place in front of a clergy person in a place of worship or in a backyard in front of a JP, it still must go through the proper legal channels in order to be valid.

 

[Storm]

As I said, I have no issue with gay people getting the same societal rights,

Cool.

but make a new ritual for them that doesn't tamper with traditions almost 2000 years old.

Um, what? Signing a contract for legal purposes is not a religious tradition. It's arguably a ritual act, but that's an irrelevant tangent. I'd like to know precisely what ritual confers legal marriage, though, and why such a blatant violation for the First Amendment should be tolerated.

 

[Wirey]

Remember, as soon as gay people marry, there will be a three hole punch shortage and goldfish and guppies will start living in sin! It's int he bible! You just have to squint reeeeeeaaaaaalllllllyyyyy hard while you read it to see it.

 

[tempter]

"Any nation that does not allow homosexuals the right to be married cannot be considered a country of freedom and equality." Do you agree or disagree, and why?

So long as the issue at hand doesn't harm others directly, I don't see any reason not to allow it.
Gay marriage legalization is like this. It doesn't directly harm anyone. Some people "don't like it". Then they should not participate in it. Doing what they can to eliminate others from being happy is evil IMO.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

"Any nation that does not allow homosexuals the right to be married cannot be considered a country of freedom and equality." Do you agree or disagree, and why?

I disagree. I see no particular reason why a nation should have to allow marriage at all in order to be said to have freedom and equality. In fact, marriage is a contract and therefore binding, it restricts people if anything, even though it offers benefits at the same time.

That said, same-sex marriage should be legal if marriage is going to be legal at all. It is still only a small step in the right direction when it comes to marriage though.

 

[NIX]

I disagree. I see no particular reason why a nation should have to allow marriage at all in order to be said to have freedom and equality. In fact, marriage is a contract and therefore binding, it restricts people if anything, even though it offers benefits at the same time.

That said, same-sex marriage should be legal if marriage is going to be legal at all. It is still only a small step in the right direction when it comes to marriage though.

I am no fan of legal marriage or life long promises myself, but other people are, and it's not right to allow legal possibilities and rights/'perks' to some, and not others. It's more a question of equality than freedom. Divorce rights have more to do with freedom than marriage does. Marriage rights have more to do with equality. Divorce= freedom from, Marriage= rights and allowances. For me, personal legal autonomy is/affords the greatest actual (or pragmatic) freedom, but that's just me.