Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If overnight, civil unions are provided the exact same benefits and rights as marriage, would you be okay with it?
I'm not talking about a situation where certain laws might not mean the same, etc, I'm talking about a mirror image of each other.
Would you be okay with it?
I'm not okay with separate yet identical laws delineated soley based on the classification of person availing him or herself to the law. Our Constitution requires that the laws be applied equally to everybody. I find the principle of separate but equal abhorrent.
As to what the law is called, I could care less. If overnight all our marriage laws were rewritten to include gay couples and all renamed "Civil Unions," I'd be happy as a clam. I just want equal access to whatever laws are on the books and to not be denied access simply because I'm gay, or male, or white, or an atheist, etc.
I probably wouldn't care, because the term civil union will not stick. No couple will claim, "We're civilly unionized". They will say, "we're married". So it will end up being marriage anyway just by societal integration of linguistics.
My point, however, is marriage is not a religious term. Words are not owned by certain subsets of humanity. And marriage only applies to the English speaking world. Most countries do not call it marriage. As I pointed out, the Netherlands calls it "huwelijk", which also applies to gay couples.
That proves the arbitrary nature of clinging to a word. The concept of same-sex marriage has existed for thousands of years. This isn't a new concept (an equal partnership is, but not same-sex relationship).
re: what people call themselves. I don't care about that. I know gay people who call themselves married. I know straight people who are cohabiting who call themselves married. That doesn't bother me at all.
You can choose to believe that marriage is not a religious term and I respect your right to that viewpoint. I only ask that you allow and respect my viewpoint that I believe in the Bible's definition of marriage. If I am not seeking to infringe on your rights, is that not a fair compromise? Or is this about a forced acceptance?
I thought we were talking about the US here as it pertains to gay marriage. I'm not really seeing how your introduction of the Netherlands is relevant.
If I believed my stance was wrong, it would mean that I believe the Bible is wrong.
What an odd position. Why would the Bible need to be wrong for your understanding of it to be wrong? I will also point out to you the Bible claims the Earth is geocentric, flat, and has a solid dome sitting on top of it. Does that position make you believe the Bible is wrong? No. Because you integrated modern scientific understanding into your interpretation of the English Bible. How is that any different than this? The Bible wasn't written in English.
You do know it's literally impossible to translate Ancient Hebrew and Greek into a word for word exact English equivalent right?
Quote:
I do not. There is no negotiation on this issue. It does not matter how many links who provide to articles about someone's interpretation of a verse. I believe that the Bible is God's word and is truth.
Then your arrogance will get the best of you. You've merely proven why your religious beliefs cannot be taken seriously. You've taken God's gift of intelligence and reasoning and thrown it out the door to cling to what a for-profit Bible publishing company wants you to believe.
It is still marriage (with many taking place within churches). I believe in marriage as it is defined in the Bible. So, clearly there is a dilemma for me. So, while I say I support gay marriage, am I now not even allowed to have a personal/spiritual dilemma about it?
You're allowed to, it just doesn't make any sense to me. My parents are atheists. They were married in 1978 (and still happily married). The went to the courthouse, filled out some papers, and got married. They did so because the were planning to make a family and home together, and they wanted the rights (the benefits, privileges, protections, and responsibilities) that come with civil marriage.
Their marriage is a legal one. It has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Would you claim it does?
Likewise, when I get married it will have nothing to do with religion. Civil marriage and religious marriage are separate, unrelated things.
Last edited by hammertime33; 05-10-2012 at 10:30 AM..
I'm not okay with separate yet identical laws delineated soley based on the classification of person availing him or herself to the law. Our Constitution requires that the laws be applied equally to everybody. I find the principle of separate but equal abhorrent.
As to what the law is called, I could care less. If overnight all our marriage laws were rewritten to include gay couples and all renamed "Civil Unions," I'd be happy as a clam. I just want equal access to whatever laws are on the books and to not be denied access simply because I'm gay, or male, or white, or an atheist, etc.
So would I. And honestly, I hope this is the direction that this will go in. But again, I do find it interesting that, in the end, it all boils down to the word marriage. What's even more interesting is that many would agree that the objection is religion-based and many gays are anti-religion. Still scratching my head over wanting to partake or fight to make use of a word/term that is associated with a religion that condemns you and your lifestyle.
If I believed my stance was wrong, it would mean that I believe the Bible is wrong. I do not. There is no negotiation on this issue. It does not matter how many links who provide to articles about someone's interpretation of a verse. I believe that the Bible is God's word and is truth.
If you have a translation from a Bible to show that the Scripture, as it has been written re: homosexuality, has been altered and perverted to have another meaning, please provide it. Otherwise, this is not a grey area for me.
Feel free to show me where homosexuality or gays are condemned in this verse.
Like I said...A Christian is not to bow to inferiors. If it is a great and righteous king- they bow...if it is a grand and just master- they submit...If it is those who seek power at any cost for power's sake they do not submit or bow.
To make it clear this is not about gays and lesbians and human rights- It is an attempt by an inferior new class that has formed that seek to dominate.
I know that there are a couple of loose lines in the bible that refer to men laying with men but why does that translate into gays not marrying? Why do you believe in those 2-3 sentences literally? Why do you ignore your religion in regards to things like women not wearing pants, no tattoos, wearing mixed fabric clothes, stoning unruly kids etc..? It's makes absolutely no sense.
They're not "loose" lines; they're quite specific. But the real problem is delineated in the last sentence of your posting.
Christians, as I understand the species, want everyone to be "saved." Although that's actually shorthand for "Saved according to our belief system." So that anytime someone, let alone a government, proposes to do something that doesn't fit within the parameters of their belief system, they're all up in arms about it.
That is the one area in which they're completely consistent. You must follow the dictates of their belief system...or you risk being labeled as a "non-believer." And, of course, you aren't supposed to want that to happen.
A religious marriage is not legally binding. A minister has no power to grant government rights.
You don't get a divorce in church.
Let no man tear asunder- man meaning state. Marriage is a spiritual contract that has nothing to do with the state. It is not governed by the state- Those who marry through a civil ceremony are for all intent - entering into a civil union- a legal one where divorce applies. Those that are truly married- even through the common law are married for ever..till death do them part- whether they are physically together or not.
I do not live with my wife- but she considers me her husband and I consider her my wife...Others do not understand this-- woman who are single expect that I am free to date them...to sleep with them- I can't because I gave my pledge through God and nature and through children that we both brought into the world..That we both agreed - that we both generated children through our bodies- together - we are married..............I don't like it- but that seems to be the divine and natural law.
It is still marriage (with many taking place within churches). I believe in marriage as it is defined in the Bible. So, clearly there is a dilemma for me. So, while I say I support gay marriage, am I now not even allowed to have a personal/spiritual dilemma about it?
Good Sir,
Nobody is forcing you to get gay married, so it is completely odd that you would be having a personal/spiritual dilemma on this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
