-
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
The majority of society does not believe it is appropriate. 75% of my state feels this way.
I'm sure about federal law. I am not an expert on all 50 states that could exceed federal law.
Would it be any more appropriate for a man to enter a high school girls shower room than for a Lesbian?
Fluffy
A fool
Who cares whether those who believe in a specific definition of marriage are bigots are not?
Would it matter if the people who treat others differently according to their skin colour are bigots? No. It is wrong to do that regardless of who or what you may be. If they don't want to be seen as bigots then fine. Who cares. Lets just focus on combating their actions and beliefs since everything else is irrelevant.
Trying to characterise the opposing side as bigots merely confuses the issue. We then spend more time debating about who is a bigot and who isn't and less about whether defining marriage in this way is morally right or not.
Would it matter if the people who treat others differently according to their skin colour are bigots? No. It is wrong to do that regardless of who or what you may be. If they don't want to be seen as bigots then fine. Who cares. Lets just focus on combating their actions and beliefs since everything else is irrelevant.
Trying to characterise the opposing side as bigots merely confuses the issue. We then spend more time debating about who is a bigot and who isn't and less about whether defining marriage in this way is morally right or not.
Should Morals define marriage or popular public opinion? Neither is going to allow same sex marriage.
Tell me about the marriage laws in the UK Fluffy?
Mestemia does. He wants to label and dismiss an opposing point of view. That is a typical Liberal debate technique.
Yes it does.
Fluffy
A fool
Heya Reverend Rick,
If we agree that the state should be a secular institution (and by that I mean unbiased towards any religion or group including atheism) then neither morality nor public opinion should dictate the definition of marriage. I feel that morality should guide our own personal opinions on the matter or at least this should be the focus of our thoughts and not how bigoted those who disagree with us are.
In the UK, the state gives marriages to heterosexuals and civil unions to homosexuals. These are identical in all but name. Churches can marry anybody who they want to but these ceremonies are not legally binding although they are almost always accompanied by a state marriage/civil union.
My personal view is that marriage should be defined and handed out by the religions and the law should have no opinion in the matter. Additionally, no legal rights should be given to married couples. In their place, anybody can apply for a civil union and be given those legal rights.
. I just feel that this "my way or the high way" attitude is divisive. We all want what we want and we want it very strongly. However, we have to learn to compromise and be patient and not push others others away into pigeon-holes that separate them from us. I dare say we are all a bit bigoted from time to time and I can't think of anything more harmful than viewing it as a quality that only those other people have.
Having said that, pigeon-holing is something we all do as well from time to time.
If we agree that the state should be a secular institution (and by that I mean unbiased towards any religion or group including atheism) then neither morality nor public opinion should dictate the definition of marriage. I feel that morality should guide our own personal opinions on the matter or at least this should be the focus of our thoughts and not how bigoted those who disagree with us are.
In the UK, the state gives marriages to heterosexuals and civil unions to homosexuals. These are identical in all but name. Churches can marry anybody who they want to but these ceremonies are not legally binding although they are almost always accompanied by a state marriage/civil union.
My personal view is that marriage should be defined and handed out by the religions and the law should have no opinion in the matter. Additionally, no legal rights should be given to married couples. In their place, anybody can apply for a civil union and be given those legal rights.
I'm unsure whether your last sentence here is supposed to be ironic? I assume it probably isReverend Rick said:
. I just feel that this "my way or the high way" attitude is divisive. We all want what we want and we want it very strongly. However, we have to learn to compromise and be patient and not push others others away into pigeon-holes that separate them from us. I dare say we are all a bit bigoted from time to time and I can't think of anything more harmful than viewing it as a quality that only those other people have.Having said that, pigeon-holing is something we all do as well from time to time.
Perhaps... but even there, would it make a difference if a person performing hetero roles was bi?
And even in the case of a porn star, it'd be a question of being able to do the job, period... if a person could still "perform" even though their actual orientation didn't match the scenes they were doing, I'd say that it would be inappropriate to fire the actor for their orientation.
The only place where your state is the majority of society is within your own state.
So... are you actually claiming that employers can arbitrarily fire a person for any cause they feel like, other than ones on the list they gave?
I noticed political affiliation wasn't on it - does someone put their job at risk when they register (or fail to register) as a Democrat or a Republican?
Remembering back to my own gym class, I don't think my gym teacher ever entered the change room while students were in it. However, I see no problem with a lesbian teacher entering a high school girl's shower room when necessary as part of her job.
Of course, I also saw no problem with my own arrangement when I was a patient of a female GP.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Many states have "at will employment" which allows employers to fire employees for no cause or any cause, so long as nobody can establish discrimination of a legally protected class. I'm not sure whether that's what RR was getting at, so if not, forget I posted. Or our lawyer Dopp can correct me if I'm wrong.
McBell
Unbound
Liar.
Go back and look.
I used "them" and "they".
YOU are the one who is going on and on about the bigot off topicness, not me.
YOU are the one who is doing the classifying, not me.
Your sad attempt at poisoning the well is rather comical, not to mention an indication of desperation on your part.
Or were you just trying to pick a fight?
Wow.
I really peed in your Post toasties, didn't I?
Which is the exact reason you are going on with it, to cloud and divert the issue.
McBell
Unbound
And if we lived in a majority rules democracy your point might be worth something.
However, since we live in a republic, your point is moot.
In your state I would not be surprised one bit.
However in my state there needs be a reason other than discrimination.
Irrelevant to conversation.
We are not talking about the sex of the person.
We are talking about the sexual preference of the person.
Which bathroom/locker room/dressing room you go into is based on the sex of the person, NOT the sexual preference of the person.
rocka21
Brother Rock
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.
why parental permission? These are two people who love each other? Who are parents to decide what is "right and wrong"?
could it be that the kids think they know whats best for them , but really don't?:angel2:
McBell
Unbound
Because minors are not legally allowed to enter into legal contracts without parental consent.why parental permission? These are two people who love each other? Who are parents to decide what is "right and wrong"?
Sure do.
Unfortunately, there are many adults who fall into the same category...
Mestemia answered the question well. All I wanted to do was to point out that your original questions seemed to be based on an incorrect assumption: underage marriages are legal (though with limitations).why parental permission? These are two people who love each other? Who are parents to decide what is "right and wrong"?
I'm having trouble trying to figure out a way that I can interpret this that doesn't involve you equating the decision-making abilities of homosexuals with that of children. Is that really what you were trying to imply?
So it is impossible for a person to oppose same sex marriage and not be a bigot in your eyes?
Your the one who called me a liar. That only goes to prove my point. Label and dismiss. Why would I be desperate? I am happy with the way things are, but am willing to be more fair about Gay rights. By the way, "topicness" is not a word.
Not in the least.
Your the one who got off topic and caused another thread to be created. I will attempt to not cloud the issue if you in kind would chill with the labels such as liar and bigot.
OK, back to the debate, yes we live in a Republic, but Gays and Lesbians are not a recognized minority and therefore do not enjoy protected status under law.
You might note that the UK has more liberal laws on the books in regard to marriage, but still do not let same sex partners call their relationship a marriage. Do you expect the United States to be more liberal than European countries? They have had more years to address issues and have their act further together.
We still live in a country that has a cow when we see a butt on TV.
blackout
Violet.
I kind of think that marriage is something we each need to define on our own.
And then at times it needs to be "re-defined" later on down the road,
as our older symbolisms sometimes lose/change their meanings all together,
and no longer work or fit within our current reality constructs.
This "re-newal" of meaning can be very difficult,
but is so very rewarding,
because it keeps your relationship NEW and Alive,
in every season
as you yourself (hopefully) are.
And then at times it needs to be "re-defined" later on down the road,
as our older symbolisms sometimes lose/change their meanings all together,
and no longer work or fit within our current reality constructs.
This "re-newal" of meaning can be very difficult,
but is so very rewarding,
because it keeps your relationship NEW and Alive,
in every season
as you yourself (hopefully) are.
blackout
Violet.
Also, I think the govt. should allow any persons to enter into legal partnerships.
Regardless of sex or number of persons.
This is simply a matter of contractual partnership,
and the govt. should not impose on these kinds of life decisions in a "free" country.
As for the rest...
as I said, the meaning behind the partnership
is our own to define.
Regardless of sex or number of persons.
This is simply a matter of contractual partnership,
and the govt. should not impose on these kinds of life decisions in a "free" country.
As for the rest...
as I said, the meaning behind the partnership
is our own to define.
Here is a voice of reason. Frubals upon you UV.
The religious right is hung up on the word marriage, but if everyone got legal civil unions and the church decided if they wanted to marry any couple if they wanted to, the problem would be solved.
McBell
Unbound
And how in the world did you get to that conclusion?
I specifically left out the names and labels.
It was you who sought them out and put them in place, not me.
And if you had not flat out lied, I would not have.
The problem as I see it is that you do not want to wear the shoes you bring.
and what did I dismiss?
I called it how I saw it.
You flat out lied.
If you do not like being called a liar, do not lie.
If I was to wager a guess, that is exactly why.
Says who?
Stop earning the label liar and I will stop applying it.
As far as bigot goes, YOU are the only one who has applied that label in this thread.
And again, as I asked in post #31:
Protected status?
Protection from what?
Protection from what?
Belgium.
I expect the USA to follow the laws it claims to honour.
In order to do so, there must be a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
There isn't one.
Relevance?
Draka
Wonder Woman
I like how you tried to use "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation" Thereby trying to assert that homosexuality is a choice and not an orientation like heterosexuality. Truly, if you look up the word "homosexual" it does not say "preference"...it says "orientation". Luckily, my state is obviously not as backwards as yours is, because I can clearly recall "sexual orientation" being on that list of things one cannot discriminate against when it comes to a job on the paperwork I have signed when starting a job here. Then again, maybe because it is federal law and those employers pay taxes. If your companies pay taxes then it should be on their paperwok as well.
Going back to the beginning of this discussion, I truly don't see the difference between people against inter-racial marriages and people against same-sex marriages. I mean, they both try to pidgeon-hole the requirements for marriage so that some people they don't think should be together can't get married. How is that in any way different?
In truth, the marriage we are discussing here has absolutely nothing to do with religion. We are talking about a state sanctioned legal joining of two people. Granting each other legal rights and benefits that go along with a partnership. The ability to legally be able to make decisions together, take care of each other, have joint property that will not be contested. If two people that love each other and want to spend their lives taking care of each other, want to enter into such an agreement, then how dare anyone say that they can't simply because they don't like who their partner happens to be?
That, without a doubt, is prejudice. I don't care how you want to slice it or argue it. I'm not using the word bigot, because that has already been shown to have the ability to be thrown back and forth easily. But having something against someone having certain rights already afforded to the majority of people just because some don't like the idea of their partner being of a certain gender...well...that IS prejudice. Plain and simple.
Christianity is a "religious group" and as such, its tenets and beliefs should have NO EFFECT on what is a secular institution. A church can decide whom it will and will not wed...but should have NO SAY on whom any other church, coven, temple, or even justice of the peace should wed.
So, if in your church you don't believe it is right for homosexuals to marry,...then don't perform the weddings. That's as far as it should go though. If Jane and Sara find a minister at a church down the road that will marry them...so be it. It has nothing to do with you and does not affect you in the least.