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.
The surprise to me was that even in the Bible Belt, white Christians are the minority in some of those states. The times they are a-changin' , as the song goes.
Earth to PRRI (the group that did the survey): Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity that can be broken down into national groups like Scandanavians (Swedes, Danes, etc) or Arabs (Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians) not a race.
I feel like white people are also more likely to abandon their religion and christianity.... like, I know a low of white kids my age who's parents are christian, but now as young adult they're just nothing.... they're just white, no religion...
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,939,436 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
BS. It's not a new "form of marriage."
You can try to continue to hide your bigotry behind your bible but the reek of intolerance gives you away.
Believe it or not, I am going to partially agree with Vizio on this one. Gay marriage IS a new form of marriage, but what is important, is the reason why.
"Traditional" marriages have always been between opposite sex partners (notice I did not say one man and one woman, as in many cultures it may be one man and multiple women, or, in rare cases, one woman and multiple men). Those marriages were as a result of tradition, often performed and acknowledged by some form of cultural or religious ceremony. Governments were not involved, and no one particularly noticed or cared if same sex partners lived together.
That all changed when governments did get involved, and now started defining the benefits and obligations of those recognized as being married. That included intestate inheritances, and more importantly, decision making powers on medical issues should one partner be incapacitated, physically or mentally. It only applied to recognized marriages, and not other partnership arrangements.
As such, there became a growing advocacy, and a resulting general recognition, that gay couples were NOT being treated equally, and the only legal manner to ensure that they had full equal treatment was to extend the privileges that legal marriages gave the traditional partners. This meant that societies had to reconsider what marriage was defined as, and there was a great deal of resistance for this sea change, and not only from fundamentalist religions. In the end, society, and the courts, found that the right thing to do is to allow same sex marriages.
In those jurisdictions where gay marriages have existed for some time, there has been little if any of the doomsday scenarios that opponents thought would occur. It also brought about the issue of gay divorce, which is still a developing one.
So, Vizio is correct that gay marriage is a new form of marriage, he just thinks of it from a different perspective. It is time he embraced it for the reasons stated above.
We've been over this many many times. Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as straight people. To create a new form of marriage to suit them is to give them rights that straight people don't have.
And you've been shown the error of your thinking every time.
Your refusal to acknowledge that speaks volumes about your character.
We've been over this many many times. Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as straight people. To create a new form of marriage to suit them is to give them rights that straight people don't have.
Who gets to define marriage? I think that's your real issue. You want to be able to define it from a religious perspective. I say fine, as long as both gay and straight people have the same legal mechanism to obtain all the same rights in a marriage, whether we call it marriage or civil union or something else. You can have whatever religious definition of marriage you want, but the state gets to define legal marriage and label it what they want.
Married couples have the right to collect Social Security survivor benefits and to not testify against their spouse in a criminal proceeding, two rights unavailable to those in a same-sex partnership no matter what legal documents they create. They want all the legal rights and privileges that come with marriage. It's that simple.
I don't understand what you mean that straight wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else, were this "new form of marriage" to be created.
Believe it or not, I am going to partially agree with Vizio on this one. Gay marriage IS a new form of marriage, but what is important, is the reason why.
"Traditional" marriages have always been between opposite sex partners (notice I did not say one man and one woman, as in many cultures it may be one man and multiple women, or, in rare cases, one woman and multiple men). Those marriages were as a result of tradition, often performed and acknowledged by some form of cultural or religious ceremony. Governments were not involved, and no one particularly noticed or cared if same sex partners lived together.
That all changed when governments did get involved, and now started defining the benefits and obligations of those recognized as being married. That included intestate inheritances, and more importantly, decision making powers on medical issues should one partner be incapacitated, physically or mentally. It only applied to recognized marriages, and not other partnership arrangements.
As such, there became a growing advocacy, and a resulting general recognition, that gay couples were NOT being treated equally, and the only legal manner to ensure that they had full equal treatment was to extend the privileges that legal marriages gave the traditional partners. This meant that societies had to reconsider what marriage was defined as, and there was a great deal of resistance for this sea change, and not only from fundamentalist religions. In the end, society, and the courts, found that the right thing to do is to allow same sex marriages.
In those jurisdictions where gay marriages have existed for some time, there has been little if any of the doomsday scenarios that opponents thought would occur. It also brought about the issue of gay divorce, which is still a developing one.
So, Vizio is correct that gay marriage is a new form of marriage, he just thinks of it from a different perspective. It is time he embraced it for the reasons stated above.
I think you and I are making the same distinction, that marriage is a cultural and religious institution, to which we have given a legal framework with a sets of rights and responsibilities. I can agree that on some levels we are redefining marriage, although I like to think of it more as we are broadening its definition.
I sometimes think we should sever the word marriage from the legal definition and call it a civil union. Let religions define marriage however they want. They can continue to have that freedom, but should not be able to restrict the legal rights of those who want to marry. But now that the opposition to same sex marriage has reached such a nasty fever pitch, I really enjoy the thought some of those screaming the loudest to have hand a piece of paper that says marriage license, not civil union, to two men or two women, and for clerks and/or judges to have to make the partnership legal. They can quit their job if they don't want to do it.
And you've been shown the error of your thinking every time.
Your refusal to acknowledge that speaks volumes about your character.
You stating that doesn't mean that you have shown me the "error" of my thinking. But keep repeating that...it's how error gets accepted as truth. When people hear something often enough they start to believe it.
Who gets to define marriage? I think that's your real issue. You want to be able to define it from a religious perspective. I say fine, as long as both gay and straight people have the same legal mechanism to obtain all the same rights in a marriage, whether we call it marriage or civil union or something else. You can have whatever religious definition of marriage you want, but the state gets to define legal marriage and label it what they want.
I really haven't quoted scripture or argued from a theological perspective. To suggest that simply is not accurate.
I haven't seen a reasonable argument of WHY we should change the definition to suit a very vocal, very small minority.
Quote:
Married couples have the right to collect Social Security survivor benefits and to not testify against their spouse in a criminal proceeding, two rights unavailable to those in a same-sex partnership no matter what legal documents they create. They want all the legal rights and privileges that come with marriage. It's that simple.
OK? And how is that relevant? Again...marriage has always been male/female. I haven't seen a reason to change that.
Quote:
I don't understand what you mean that straight wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else, were this "new form of marriage" to be created.
If we create a form of marriage based only on same-gender sexual attraction, obviously this would be something that is suited ONLY to a very small minority.
If we create a form of marriage based only on same-gender sexual attraction, obviously this would be something that is suited ONLY to a very small minority.
But creating a new form of marriage is not in this case conferring something on that minority that the majority doesn't already have.
Now: Heterosexuals are free to marry and clergy that doesn't want to, doesn't have to recognize or bless gay marriage.
After marriage equality: Heterosexuals are free to marry and clergy that doesn't want to, doesn't have to recognize or bless gay marriage.
Do you see the lack of difference?
The only difference is one that impacts gays, in practice mostly by allowing them to care for each other medically without special provisions, and to have different defaults for property inheritance, and some minor tax advantages in some cases.
Your real objection, I suspect, but one which you can't really publicly admit to, is your fear surrounding the fact that gays will inevitably be less and less regarded as doing something loathsome and strange and dangerous by openly being married to each other.
In other words you're losing an excuse to exclude, otherize, hate, and discriminate against others, or at the least, you're losing some measure of power and influence over the "institution" of marriage. This is about preserving your group's largely symbolic power / control / hegemony over marriage at the expense of other people's legitimate human rights.
This is also why gays are fighting so hard for marriage equality. The actual empirical benefits are not that great; this is mostly about symbolic equality, and actual respect. It's very similar to what I've imposed on my adult son in the past few days. He owes me money that he won't repay. I cut him off from further financial assistance and drew up a contract for repayment of what he owes. It isn't really about the money as such; it's symbolic. It's about respect and appreciation and honor for his personal obligations. It's a life lesson. Yeah there's real $$ involved but that's besides the point. I'll end up taking 25 cents on the dollar anyway.
Same deal with gay marriage. There are a few real benefits but the real point is for gays to be treated with equal dignity and respect. That is really the only thing of substance that you are insisting on denying them, despite it having zero actual impact on your group. Which as others have pointed out, speaks to your character.
But creating a new form of marriage is not in this case conferring something on that minority that the majority doesn't already have.
The minority already CAN get married though. No one is saying they can't. You can argue that they can't marry the ones they WANT to, or that they love....but so what? No one is guaranteed the right to do that.
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.
