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.
Up until tonight, I've been firmly against the notion of gay marriage, as I was under the assumption that Conservatives truly knew what they were arguing about for once when it came to the issue. However, I've always supported civil unions, as I feel as if gays/lesbians deserve the same legal and financial benefits as are afforded to heterosexuals.
Tonight a few thoughts popped into my mind while I was pondering the topic. First of all, many Conservatives argue that gays shouldn't be married because it's a "religious" institution. Well, correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't there countless atheists in this nation who are lawfully-wed? If a straight couple who does not believe in God is allowed to marry, then why isn't a gay Christian couple? It seems a bit hypocritical for your right-wingers to say that gays can't marry based upon religious grounds, yet you see no problem with ATHEISTS marrying, apparently in defiance of God? Why then aren't you all protesting to prohibit atheists from entering into holy matrimony? Are they "grandfathered" in because they've been marrying BEFORE you fundamentalists decided that you could "define" love? I'm just not understanding that logic. Would one of you Christian right-wingers care to clear that one up for me?
Another thought that entered into my mind was the issue of "separation of church and state." If straight couples are allowed to be married by a justice of the peace, thereby eliminating the need for Christianity to be involved, then why can't gay people enjoy that same benefit? Furthermore, may I inquire into a few more "hypothetical" situations?
1.) Two cars are traveling in opposite directions on a windy, two-lane roadway in two separate vehicles. In one car is a gay couple who has been together for thirty years, yet they have been unable to secure any sort of legal bond due to our nation's pandering towards right-wingers. In the other car is Britney Spears on her way home from her third rehab stint with her brand new husband, Julio JuJuBean, that she had just met two days earlier. Britney, still high on cocaine, crosses the center line and smashes into the gay couple's car head-on at 55 miles per hour. Both drivers receive minor injuries, but both passengers are placed into intensive care. Did you know that in this nation of ours, this two-day newlywed couple receives preference over that 30-year unmarried same-sex couple? WHY? Britney can be there to see her two-day-long husband come out of a coma while the gay man can't be there to hold his partner's hand as he succumbs to surgical complications. That man lives the rest of his days in tears, wishing he could have said "good-bye." Where's the fairness in THAT?
2.) Five years after the accident, Britney ditches her husband for being disabled and finds a new boyfriend, Peter Pickle, who she marries after two dates. The gay widower likewise finds a new soul mate on the same day, and things seem to be getting back to normal. Both Britney and this gay man, as luck would have it, are hired on the same day for the same company. Both apply for medical benefits to be extended to their partners. Britney's request is approved; the other man's is denied. WHY?
These are just two of the many scenarios I've been thinking about as I finally come to terms with the fact that I am indeed a "second-class citizen." How can a nation founded upon religious freedom and the "separation of church and state" be allowed to force Christian fundamentalism onto 300 million people? Would someone please give me some justification for those scenarios? I'm just curious as to where the equality is in that?
Up until tonight, I've been firmly against the notion of gay marriage, as I was under the assumption that Conservatives truly knew what they were arguing about for once when it came to the issue. However, I've always supported civil unions, as I feel as if gays/lesbians deserve the same legal and financial benefits as are afforded to heterosexuals.
Tonight a few thoughts popped into my mind while I was pondering the topic. First of all, many Conservatives argue that gays shouldn't be married because it's a "religious" institution. Well, correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't there countless atheists in this nation who are lawfully-wed? If a straight couple who does not believe in God is allowed to marry, then why isn't a gay Christian couple? It seems a bit hypocritical for your right-wingers to say that gays can't marry based upon religious grounds, yet you see no problem with ATHEISTS marrying, apparently in defiance of God? Why then aren't you all protesting to prohibit atheists from entering into holy matrimony? Are they "grandfathered" in because they've been marrying BEFORE you fundamentalists decided that you could "define" love? I'm just not understanding that logic. Would one of you Christian right-wingers care to clear that one up for me?
Another thought that entered into my mind was the issue of "separation of church and state." If straight couples are allowed to be married by a justice of the peace, thereby eliminating the need for Christianity to be involved, then why can't gay people enjoy that same benefit? Furthermore, may I inquire into a few more "hypothetical" situations?
1.) Two cars are traveling in opposite directions on a windy, two-lane roadway in two separate vehicles. In one car is a gay couple who has been together for thirty years, yet they have been unable to secure any sort of legal bond due to our nation's pandering towards right-wingers. In the other car is Britney Spears on her way home from her third rehab stint with her brand new husband, Julio JuJuBean, that she had just met two days earlier. Britney, still high on cocaine, crosses the center line and smashes into the gay couple's car head-on at 55 miles per hour. Both drivers receive minor injuries, but both passengers are placed into intensive care. Did you know that in this nation of ours, this two-day newlywed couple receives preference over that 30-year unmarried same-sex couple? WHY? Britney can be there to see her two-day-long husband come out of a coma while the gay man can't be there to hold his partner's hand as he succumbs to surgical complications. That man lives the rest of his days in tears, wishing he could have said "good-bye." Where's the fairness in THAT?
2.) Five years after the accident, Britney ditches her husband for being disabled and finds a new boyfriend, Peter Pickle, who she marries after two dates. The gay widower likewise finds a new soul mate on the same day, and things seem to be getting back to normal. Both Britney and this gay man, as luck would have it, are hired on the same day for the same company. Both apply for medical benefits to be extended to their partners. Britney's request is approved; the other man's is denied. WHY?
These are just two of the many scenarios I've been thinking about as I finally come to terms with the fact that I am indeed a "second-class citizen." How can a nation founded upon religious freedom and the "separation of church and state" be allowed to force Christian fundamentalism onto 300 million people? Would someone please give me some justification for those scenarios? I'm just curious as to where the equality is in that?
Thank you!
I'll weigh in on this briefly.
Gay marriage should be allowed as a legal contract. It doesn't have to be called marriage, but a civil union should be legally considered the same as marriage.
Gay marriage in church? Leave it up to the church.
Location: Comunistafornia, and working to get out ASAP!
1,962 posts, read 5,196,787 times
Reputation: 951
Is There Room for Religion in Anti-Gay Legislation?
Yes, always.
And this continually crying over the so-called "denied rights" of gays is getting pretty old. Just another propaganda tool to get the mainstream to accept the sin as normal.
Is There Room for Religion in Anti-Gay Legislation?
Yes, always.
And this continually crying over the so-called "denied rights" of gays is getting pretty old. Just another propaganda tool to get the mainstream to accept the sin as normal.
It can't be a sin because they don't choose to be that way.
It's actually a genetic defect beyond the persons control, so you might want to file a complaint with the creator when you're in church next. Gotta watch that quality control
Scranton, this is the only question that registers with me.
We have given away our power as a nation by allowing the increased union of church and state.
One of the arguments that has come up here, in the religious threads, is how people view that connection or separation.
What is unclear is when people are speaking of their Christian faith, which Christian faith they are proclaiming. This lack of clarity makes for for much confusion about people's convictions. Christianity encompasses many different belief systems.
However, even without the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity, gay-marriage was not a popular concept, but with more religious right in ascendency, this is seen as much more profane.
Quote:
How can a nation founded upon religious freedom and the "separation of church and state" be allowed to force Christian fundamentalism onto 300 million people? Would someone please give me some justification for those scenarios? I'm just curious as to where the equality is in that?
It should be called exactly that, a marriage. Anyone give me an argument to the contrary, excluding the bible, b/c the bible has no bearing on real life.
Is There Room for Religion in Anti-Gay Legislation?
Yes, always.
And this continually crying over the so-called "denied rights" of gays is getting pretty old. Just another propaganda tool to get the mainstream to accept the sin as normal.
Really? You think people like Britney Spears are of a higher moral status than the gay couple in the scenario I mentioned just because she happens to be straight? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It should be called exactly that, a marriage. Anyone give me an argument on the contrary, excluding the bible, b/c the bible has no bearing on real life.
I'm actually still okay with "civil union" as that's all I ever wanted in the first place. I'm still just not comfortable with people like Marks, who are unfortunately the DOMINANT ones in this nation. Other than referencing me as being a "sinner", what other legal, concrete evidence did he/she provide to deny me and my partner the right to the same financial and legal benefits as my heterosexual counterparts? None. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Nunca. I have yet to see one logical argument against civil unions that didn't somehow pull religion into the fray. As I've said before, keep religion OUT of politics! Marks, if you can give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to be joined to my partner besides "it being a sinful act", which is SUBJECTIVE, then I'll give you credit where credit is due. Until you can somehow show me how the lives of straight people in Massachusetts have been deteriorating as a direct result of gays/lesbians tying the knot, then you don't have much credibility in my eyes.
Really? You think people like Britney Spears are of a higher moral status than the gay couple in the scenario I mentioned just because she happens to be straight? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
In all seriousness you have to pick your battles. There is NO WAY that organized religion will ever let gays come together in union and call it "marriage". At this point I would shoot for a new classification with the EXACT same legal rights and privileges as marriage.
I had to roll my eyes at my own wedding because of the religious content in the ceremony. I honestly don't care, I just wanted the "married filing jointly" status and the ability to put her under my health benefits.
They could have called it "legally shacking up" for all I care.
I just wanted the "married filing jointly" status and the ability to put her under my health benefits.
They could have called it "legally shacking up" for all I care.
-TT
That's not even a good 'nuff reason. You get more back if you file seperate or single.
My beef is, if we heteros get to mock marriage (a la Britney Spears), then we don't get to tell gays what marriage is.
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.
Would one of you Christian right-wingers care to clear that one up for me? 
How can a nation founded upon religious freedom and the "separation of church and state" be allowed to force Christian fundamentalism onto 300 million people? Would someone please give me some justification for those scenarios? I'm just curious as to where the equality is in that? 
