-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Redefining Marriage and all that
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Ding Ding Ding. No one can fill my shoes, so I doubt the shoe fits.
First off we have to classify Gays and Lesbians as a protected group of people. This has not happened yet. What is to prevent anyone from claiming their Gay to receive protected status?
This is the biggest stumbling block that separates this group from receiving protected status where race is easier to identify.
Next off, I resent the implementation of the one sized fits all shoe and the basket. That is offensive. People who oppose same sex marriage should not be grouped in the same basket as segregationists or downright race haters and bigots.
Many Christians love the person, but condemn the action and therefore do not need to be labeled as bigots. I doubt any bigots loved black people.
First off we have to classify Gays and Lesbians as a protected group of people. This has not happened yet. What is to prevent anyone from claiming their Gay to receive protected status?
This is the biggest stumbling block that separates this group from receiving protected status where race is easier to identify.
Next off, I resent the implementation of the one sized fits all shoe and the basket. That is offensive. People who oppose same sex marriage should not be grouped in the same basket as segregationists or downright race haters and bigots.
Many Christians love the person, but condemn the action and therefore do not need to be labeled as bigots. I doubt any bigots loved black people.
Another point, who is redefining marriage? I believe Christians are defining marriage and same sex couples are the ones who want to redefine marriage.
Are religious groups easier to identify?
Perhaps we should get rid of protections for religions on the grounds that atheists can go to church and pretend to be religious.
IMO, prejudice against homosexuals is a form of bigotry. This doesn't necessarily mean that someone who is prejudiced against homosexuals is also a segregationist or a "race hater", but the term "bigot" applies to all of them.
I have strong doubts about how deep the "love" goes of the folks who approach homosexuality with the claimed approach of "love the sinner, hate the sin". I don't see a lot of difference between that and some of the rationales that I've heard for state-sanctioned racism - many I've seen approached segregation and differential treatment of non-whites as benevolence (e.g. "they just don't have the intellect to handle complex things like voting, so we have to take care of them").
In a secular society, no religious group a monopoly on the definition of anything for society as a whole, including "marriage". Also, I should point out that it's not only same-sex couples who want legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
In my mind, the government isn't redefining marriage - that happens within society as a whole. Government's job (within the limitations of the law and protections for rights of the minority and the individual) is to make the laws of the land reflective of the views of society. "Redefining marriage" doesn't happen through law, it happens through the will of the people, and it's the government's duty to adjust legislation accordingly.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
The White Man's Burden. Oppression based on race was also justified as being more "natural" not unlike people who fear homosexuality argue. See e.g. Herbert Spencer.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
What was marriage in Biblical times? Was it just setting up house and having kids? Or was there a civil union type thing in the Roman Empire which involved property rights etc etc?
I was under the impression that underage marriage is legal in many (most?) places with parental consent, provided the husband and wife are older than a certian age (which varies, but is as low as 12 or 13 in some places, IIRC).
Anyhow, what do you see as the common issue between that and same-sex marriage?
McBell
Unbound
Why?
Why do they have to be classified anything in order to have the same rights?
And you complain about my alleged bigotry.
Protected status?
Protection from what?
Honesty, I really do not care.
If you want to go out of you way to be offended, by all means, be offended.
the really comical part about your being offended is that it is YOU going to the great lengths to put everyone in the same basket, not me.
What 9-10ths_Penguin said:
McBell
Unbound
Yes.
Christians are ONCE AGAIN redefining marriage.
McBell
Unbound
What?
Are you claiming that the gay-rights people are fighting for underage marriage?
If so, please present your source.
Perhaps because 13 year old don't want to get married?
rheff78
I'm your huckleberry.
Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel here? Unless you can provide evidence that same-sex marriage has been allowed throughout history, Christians are not re-defining marriage, they are keeping up what the current definition of marriage is (and has been for some time).
The will of the people want a marriage to be defined as a union between one man and one woman.
The limitations of the law does not recognise Gays and Lesbians as a protected minority.
Protected minorities are:
Race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, and age.
One could argue that sexual preference should be included but being Gay and Lesbian is suppose to not be a preference. Preference opens the door for alot of other issues and is not the best route to equality.
Same sex marriage is not the only issue.
Unfair hiring practices and job security is a shambles for the gay and lesbian community. You could choose to not hire someone for being gay or even fire them for the same reason and it would not be against the law.
Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis make a rather public stand on the issue with his actions?
But if there is some sort of parallel between underage marriage and same-sex marriage, maybe we can handle them both in the same way: anyone with parental permission should be able to enter into a same-sex marriage.
kai
ragamuffin
well i think you are probably right , what they do in a civil ceremony is a civil matter but is a church allowed to refuse a same sex couple?, its a genuine question i havnt a clue
It's not "re-inventing the wheel" to merely point to a new form of wheel and say "yep, that's a wheel".
Depends where you are. If a society does consider same-sex marriage to be appropriate, would you still consider it wrong to have the law reflect this?
Two points:
- the law (as well as the fundamental principles of justice on which the law is based) recognize protections and rights for individuals. People in same-sex marriages are individuals, and are entitled to many rights and freedoms for that reason alone, including equal treatment under the law.
- religion is a preference.
Are you sure?
I'm not that familiar with US law, but I was under the impression that generally, people couldn't be fired for things that did not relate to the job. For example, sports team affiliations aren't grounds for special protection, but I'm confident that any employer who fired an employee merely for being a Mets fan would find themselves on the nasty end of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit. Are you trying to imply that sexual orientation gets an even lower level of protection than that?
I'm hard-pressed to think of any circumstance where sexual orientation is relevant at all to someone's job.
McBell
Unbound
Porn star?