Homosexuality and marriage (again)

[Mike182]

In making a demand for us to alter our beliefs to suit theirs they are asking for some measure of understanding on our part. However those for same sex dont realise that those beliefs are as/if not more important to us than sexual preferance and freedoms. But there is no understanding of that fact.

there is an understanding of that fact... the majority of gays and gay rights supporters don't give a hoot what you think or believe with regards to homosexuality, what they care about is the social injustice surrounding the current system of union rights between couples that discriminates against gays.

give gays equal rights to marriage - yes, under a different name if it really is all that important - and that solves the issue for both parties. you can keep your monopoly over the word marriage, churches can make their own decision on if they support ceremonies for gay couples or not, and gays can get their social justice. you don't have to accept what gay people do because it doesn't affect you, and gay people don't have to accept what you believe because it doesn't affect them - everyone wins.

when you can award equality to gays without compromising your own beliefs, and you choose not to... well, there are many descriptive words one might choose to use.

 

[s2a]

Ok.
I am speaking as a straight guy. But one who beliieves that all humans are born equal, no matter their colour, gender or sexual orientatiuon.

...and also a strong atheist.

Ok. here's where I stand...
I dont believe same sex couple should be married under any faith where their texts forbid it... If you want to be a christian/muslim etc and get married then you do need to be straight...as far as I can see... And for me that's a good thing as it just highlights how irrelevant those religions are in todays world...

However I believe all couples should have equal right to 'marriage' under state, non-religious law.

The current law in the UK annoys the hell out of me. As a non-religious non-homosexual person I would welcome the current ability for union that homosexuals have been (rightfully) given... But I'm not allowed it...

What do you think?

I think that any legally (federally) recognized religion/mysticism/sect/spiritualism/mythology/superstition reserves the right to protect and preserve their own dogmatic principles and teachings. Period.

The State is not empowered to either regulate nor enforce any dogmatic principles or practices of any recognized "faith-based" entity or organization (unless those practices directly impinge/impact/constrain the freely exercised rituals of others). The State should remain removed and disinterested in either the policies or practices of any faith-based belief persons or organizations...free from threats of either persecution or prosecution (within the broader scope of federally protected civil/human rights).

It should never be the State's role or responsibility to impose or enforce pluralistically secular standards upon religious/spiritual communities (again, within the broader scope of federally protected civil/human rights).

As long as the State remains beyond/outside (tacit) any impositioned dictate, influence, or authority in the matters of particularly sectarian
interests/practices/beliefs...it can be fairly said [then] that the State remains tacitly neutral and disengaged within (and beyond) the policies/practices/rituals of such faith-based beliefs. NO free thinking citizen is either forced nor encouraged by the State to accept or abide by ANY religious institution, dogma, or ritual. Religious/sectarian adherence is therfore a matter of free-will and personal choice beyond the influence, control, or mandate of any State institution.

"Marriage" (as both an act, and an "institution") is a State recognized legal union of two consenting adults that wish to engage in the attendant rights, encumbrances, and responsibilities of mutual interests and shared burdens of a committed relationship recognized by the State in both civil and legal terms as a mutually interested and bound pairing of conscious obligation and accountability to the civil/legal rights the State grants and favors as a "contract" of willing partnership.

The State neither insists upon, nor legally requires any two individuals to [ever] enter into such a binding "contract". In as much, the State remains a disinterested third party. Every citizen, within such a pluralistic and secular form of government, retains every personal right and liberty to remain "single" for however long they please.

Some religions demand that faithful adherents abide by established dogmatic principles as a testament of that faith...and failure to abide by such principles constitute beliefs/practices that are inconsistent with foundational dogma that all adherents must practice/abide, or...else.

In this particular instance, the State can not be an interested party, neither serving as advocate nor dissenter. "Marriage" can be sanctioned by the State, whether or not (or irrespective of) any individual chooses to abide or ignore the tenants of their religious affiliations.

If religious sects refuse to recognize or accept State-sanctioned "marriage", that's their concern...and the concomitant burden to be borne by any individuals espousing a specific sectarian affiliation.

There's NO secular nor pluralistic rationale (within the protections of constitutional law) that should defend any particular sectarian belief/dogma as superior to (or countermanding of) the most basic civil rights/liberties afforded to all citizens as being either just, or equally applied/enforced.

I ask any opponent to equality of marriage rights, amongst those of any gender (same or mixed)...what secular/pluralistic civil/human right/ideal is either advanced or preserved in preventing/prohibiting same-sex marriages?

If your church/faith/sect/belief does not wish to "recognize" (or "sanctify") any particular "marriage" as being "holy", or "acceptable" within your dogma/principles...that's fine with me...and should be with the State. That's your own imposed/accepted obstacle (to faith) to encounter and (perhaps) overcome..not the State's to manage or avoid...and certainly not mine (as a married heterosexual of 18+ years).

If religion is getting in the way of a commitment to "true love", then maybe your religion has no "truth" of any lasting value within that commitment.

 

[frg001]

I think that any legally (federally) recognized religion/mysticism/sect/spiritualism/mythology/superstition reserves the right to protect and preserve their own dogmatic principles and teachings. Period.

The State is not empowered to either regulate nor enforce any dogmatic principles or practices of any recognized "faith-based" entity or organization (unless those practices directly impinge/impact/constrain the freely exercised rituals of others). The State should remain removed and disinterested in either the policies or practices of any faith-based belief persons or organizations...free from threats of either persecution or prosecution (within the broader scope of federally protected civil/human rights).

It should never be the State's role or responsibility to impose or enforce pluralistically secular standards upon religious/spiritual communities (again, within the broader scope of federally protected civil/human rights).

As long as the State remains beyond/outside (tacit) any impositioned dictate, influence, or authority in the matters of particularly sectarian
interests/practices/beliefs...it can be fairly said [then] that the State remains tacitly neutral and disengaged within (and beyond) the policies/practices/rituals of such faith-based beliefs. NO free thinking citizen is either forced nor encouraged by the State to accept or abide by ANY religious institution, dogma, or ritual. Religious/sectarian adherence is therfore a matter of free-will and personal choice beyond the influence, control, or mandate of any State institution.

"Marriage" (as both an act, and an "institution") is a State recognized legal union of two consenting adults that wish to engage in the attendant rights, encumbrances, and responsibilities of mutual interests and shared burdens of a committed relationship recognized by the State in both civil and legal terms as a mutually interested and bound pairing of conscious obligation and accountability to the civil/legal rights the State grants and favors as a "contract" of willing partnership.

The State neither insists upon, nor legally requires any two individuals to [ever] enter into such a binding "contract". In as much, the State remains a disinterested third party. Every citizen, within such a pluralistic and secular form of government, retains every personal right and liberty to remain "single" for however long they please.

Some religions demand that faithful adherents abide by established dogmatic principles as a testament of that faith...and failure to abide by such principles constitute beliefs/practices that are inconsistent with foundational dogma that all adherents must practice/abide, or...else.

In this particular instance, the State can not be an interested party, neither serving as advocate nor dissenter. "Marriage" can be sanctioned by the State, whether or not (or irrespective of) any individual chooses to abide or ignore the tenants of their religious affiliations.

If religious sects refuse to recognize or accept State-sanctioned "marriage", that's their concern...and the concomitant burden to be borne by any individuals espousing a specific sectarian affiliation.

There's NO secular nor pluralistic rationale (within the protections of constitutional law) that should defend any particular sectarian belief/dogma as superior to (or countermanding of) the most basic civil rights/liberties afforded to all citizens as being either just, or equally applied/enforced.

I ask any opponent to equality of marriage rights, amongst those of any gender (same or mixed)...what secular/pluralistic civil/human right/ideal is either advanced or preserved in preventing/prohibiting same-sex marriages?

If your church/faith/sect/belief does not wish to "recognize" (or "sanctify") any particular "marriage" as being "holy", or "acceptable" within your dogma/principles...that's fine with me...and should be with the State. That's your own imposed/accepted obstacle (to faith) to encounter and (perhaps) overcome..not the State's to manage or avoid...and certainly not mine (as a married heterosexual of 18+ years).

If religion is getting in the way of a commitment to "true love", then maybe your religion has no "truth" of any lasting value within that commitment.

In a nutshell that's it. Except it isn't as state law in many countries forbids same sex 'marriage' . In the UK they have this half-baked civil partnership, which is separate from 'marriage' , and in the US it depends where you live (I think).

 

[Aasimar]

I move that if we ban gay marriage, we also ban obesity, which is also an abomination. And Polyester.

 

[sandandfoam]

I move that if we ban gay marriage, we also ban obesity, which is also an abomination. And Polyester.

And non-reproductive sex.

 

[Nanda]

I move that if we ban gay marriage, we also ban obesity, which is also an abomination. And Polyester.

Hey! Don't you try to oppress me!

 

[England my lionheart]

OK its good that people love each other ays can have a civil marriage but the bottom dollar is it never amounts to much happiness.I had a freind who was kind of confused about his sexuality and he told me he thoughthe was gay and hoped we could still be freinds,i did'nt give a crap as he was a mate.However after some failed relaionships with both women and men he hit the bottle in a big way and nomatter what anyone said he drank and drank and in the ed he died of liver failure.
So what you may say,well one of his boyfreinds wanted to have the civil marriage and this just pushed him or the edge because in his heart he believed it was wrong even being gay let alone marriage.Homosexuals and lesbians have been around since men have, but i have rarely met many that are truly happy with ther lot.

 

[astarath]

there is an understanding of that fact... the majority of gays and gay rights supporters don't give a hoot what you think or believe with regards to homosexuality, what they care about is the social injustice surrounding the current system of union rights between couples that discriminates against gays.

give gays equal rights to marriage - yes, under a different name if it really is all that important - and that solves the issue for both parties. you can keep your monopoly over the word marriage, churches can make their own decision on if they support ceremonies for gay couples or not, and gays can get their social justice. you don't have to accept what gay people do because it doesn't affect you, and gay people don't have to accept what you believe because it doesn't affect them - everyone wins.

when you can award equality to gays without compromising your own beliefs, and you choose not to... well, there are many descriptive words one might choose to use.

This is my stance that a civil union is acceptable if done under anoter term. Marriage is a key religious practice and as such must be done following the practice which does not include homosexual unions.

 

[Storm]

What about those religious groups that DO want to marry homosexuals, like the UUs? Isn't their religious freedom being infringed? The fact that they're a minority isn't supposed to matter.

 

[Autodidact]

No, I had no idea. I live under a rock.

I don't know how gay Christians reconcile their beliefs with their sexuality. I personally don't see a compromise, any more than I would see me embracing excessive drinking as a lifestyle choice to live alongside my faith. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying I haven't seen evidence of it. By all means, present some. I'd be happy to consider it.

So you realize that "Christians" and "Gay people" are not two opposing groups; indeed, they may be the same person.
I am not one, but I believe the general ideas include:
1. The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible were mistranslated centuries ago, and probably refer to male temple prostitutes, not consensual, ongoing relationships. (Apparently this has some solid academic support; I don't speak Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew, so can't really comment.)
2. Jesus wants us to love one another, and that is the core gospel message.
3. God made us this way for a reason, and it is not for us to reject His creation.

btw, as I have posted 10 or 20 times here at RF, lesbianism is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible, yet many Christians call it a sin, with no basis for doing so. At the same time they do not condemn people who divorce and remarry, which is clearly and repeatedly prohibited. Indeed, some of the people condemning the non-sinful behavior (lesbianism) are themselves unrepentant sinners (remarried.) Now THAT'S hypocrisy for you. Interesting, isn't it?

 

[Autodidact]

OK its good that people love each other ays can have a civil marriage but the bottom dollar is it never amounts to much happiness.I had a freind who was kind of confused about his sexuality and he told me he thoughthe was gay and hoped we could still be freinds,i did'nt give a crap as he was a mate.However after some failed relaionships with both women and men he hit the bottle in a big way and nomatter what anyone said he drank and drank and in the ed he died of liver failure.
So what you may say,well one of his boyfreinds wanted to have the civil marriage and this just pushed him or the edge because in his heart he believed it was wrong even being gay let alone marriage.Homosexuals and lesbians have been around since men have, but i have rarely met many that are truly happy with ther lot.

Nice to meet you, England! :rainbow1: (Autodidact, the Happy Lesbian)

 

[England my lionheart]

Nice to meet you too

 

[frg001]

OK its good that people love each other ays can have a civil marriage but the bottom dollar is it never amounts to much happiness.I had a freind who was kind of confused about his sexuality and he told me he thoughthe was gay and hoped we could still be freinds,i did'nt give a crap as he was a mate.However after some failed relaionships with both women and men he hit the bottle in a big way and nomatter what anyone said he drank and drank and in the ed he died of liver failure.
So what you may say,well one of his boyfreinds wanted to have the civil marriage and this just pushed him or the edge because in his heart he believed it was wrong even being gay let alone marriage.Homosexuals and lesbians have been around since men have, but i have rarely met many that are truly happy with ther lot.

Possibly the main reason why the homosexual people you meet who are unhappy and confused, is because bigotted organisations treat them differently, and they are told that the feelings they were born with are evil or 'unholy'

 

[England my lionheart]

Not at all,i dont think you can blame any organisation for that,in the case for the army not being sympathetic to gays is obvious and the same reason the early greeks banned it from the army but otherwise even some churches accept gays.Sometimes the gay community make a big thing out of being gay,but i do think it is selfish of gay people to adopt children and completely wrong.

 

[namguy]

I was unaware that the FEDERAL Government got any money from marriages.
Would you be so kind as to present a source or two?

Somewhere along the line they're making a buck. Of course there's no sources I can give you.

 

[Autodidact]

Not at all,i dont think you can blame any organisation for that,in the case for the army not being sympathetic to gays is obvious and the same reason the early greeks banned it from the army but otherwise even some churches accept gays.Sometimes the gay community make a big thing out of being gay,but i do think it is selfish of gay people to adopt children and completely wrong.

I am a lesbian. I have three children. The youngest one is adopted. She was placed with me by the County Department of Human Services because her (heterosexual) parents were not able to care for her properly, and the first (heterosexual) foster parents decided not to keep her. As a result of all of this, she is a very troubled and difficult child, but I have taken on the long commitment of caring for her because I want to contribute to making the world a better place, and do what I can to help one person. It's very difficult, but I think it's worthwhile. The County knew I was a lesbian when they placed her with me, but had no problem with it, in part because the need for foster parents is so great, especially for troubled children like her. I have since adopted her, and will, unlike the other adults in her life, keep my promise to parent her and provide her with a stable home and family.

Do you still think that gay people who adopt children are selfish, and that it's completely wrong? Do you think it's better for children to remain in foster care, because there is no family available to place them with?

 

[England my lionheart]

Personally i think it would be better for the child to be in care unless the person adopting lives without a gay partner as this is confusing to everyone especially the child.

 

[standing_alone]

Personally i think it would be better for the child to be in care unless the person adopting lives without a gay partner as this is confusing to everyone especially the child.

...Wow.

 

[England my lionheart]

If child has same sex parents how can they understand about their own sexuality,i have 3 children 2 boys and a girl and we are their role models ,how can that be anygood for a boy for example with lesbian parents.

 

[Autodidact]

Personally i think it would be better for the child to be in care unless the person adopting lives without a gay partner as this is confusing to everyone especially the child.

What would be confusing about that? Some people are heterosexual, some people are gay. That doesn't seem to be very confusing to me or my children. btw my oldest, who just turned 19, is heterosexual and rather outstanding, if I do say so myself, and has no regrets or issues with having been raised by lesbians.

I think every child needs and deserves a loving family, and their parents sex lives are irrelevant.

Here are some organizations that agree with me and disagree with you (not gay organizations, but child welfare organizations)
the Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest children's advocacy organization,
the North American Council on Adoptable Children,
The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a national adoption organization, strongly supports the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt, and urges that remaining obstacles be removed.

"The bottom line for those of us who advocate for children is clear," said Adam Pertman, the Executive Director of the Adoption Institute in a March 23, 2006 statement. "There's simply no credible research to indicate that children are harmed in any way when they're adopted by gay and lesbian parents, but there's lots of evidence to indicate that they do well in those homes."

the American Psychological Association,
American Academy of Pediatrics
the National Adoption Center, t
he American Medical Association.