"It's my birthday, so vote against 'Gay Marriage'"
Yes, because it always come down to gays being immoral and hating them is part of Christianity so accepting them is infringing on one's religion
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
I don't see it as a "hate" issue. I think that's an unnecessary conclusion to jump to. But if a religion, any religion, believes strongly that something--anything--is wrong, it is not the role of the government or justice system to compel them to do something that compromises those beliefs. Even when the US government actively conscripted men into military service, they still found ways to accommodate religious conscientious objectors.
Besides, if two people of the same sex want to get married, there's no law that requires them to get married in a church or church facility. If a church doesn't want you to get married in their building, why would you WANT to? Forcing a church to compromise its position on morality is nothing less than bullying and a means by which hateful people can impose their beliefs on a religious institution.
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
It seems to be the word "marriage" that upsets so many opponents of gay marriage. There is a simple solution.
Have the government stop recognizing any marriages at all, and only recognize civil unions. Every couple, gay or straight, would have to go to the courthouse and have a civil union, then they would be a legal couple. If they choose, they can hold any kind of marriage ceremony they want to, so they can have their religious sanctioned marriages. People would be free to have marriage ceremonies, religious or secular, without the civil union, but the government would not recognize it. A marriage could be dissolved by the church or house of worship that performed it, or simply by the couple themselves in some cases. A civil union would have to be dissolved by the government.
In other words, take sanctioning marriage completely out of the governments hands, and have them only sanction civil unions. This way, whichever religion or sect a person belongs to, they can be sure that no one they do not approve of will be married within their church.
We already do something similar in the US by requiring a government issued marriage license. Why not just take it one step further and have the government issue a civil union, a legal contract, between any couple, and leave whether or not to have a ceremony and what kind up to the couple.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
Have the government stop recognizing any marriages at all, and only recognize civil unions. Every couple, gay or straight, would have to go to the courthouse and have a civil union, then they would be a legal couple. If they choose, they can hold any kind of marriage ceremony they want to, so they can have their religious sanctioned marriages. People would be free to have marriage ceremonies, religious or secular, without the civil union, but the government would not recognize it. A marriage could be dissolved by the church or house of worship that performed it, or simply by the couple themselves in some cases. A civil union would have to be dissolved by the government.
In other words, take sanctioning marriage completely out of the governments hands, and have them only sanction civil unions. This way, whichever religion or sect a person belongs to, they can be sure that no one they do not approve of will be married within their church.
We already do something similar in the US by requiring a government issued marriage license. Why not just take it one step further and have the government issue a civil union, a legal contract, between any couple, and leave whether or not to have a ceremony and what kind up to the couple.
It's a solution I've advocated in the past, but an unrealistic one. The government isn't going to change the word 'marriage' to 'civil union'.
_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.
That's more or less the German model, although we still call it marriage. People can only get married at a registrar's office. Priests don't have the legal right to conduct a legally binding union. Many couples have a church wedding in addition to their civil marriage, but that is just a religious ceremony.
I don't see it as a "hate" issue. I think that's an unnecessary conclusion to jump to. But if a religion, any religion, believes strongly that something--anything--is wrong, it is not the role of the government or justice system to compel them to do something that compromises those beliefs. Even when the US government actively conscripted men into military service, they still found ways to accommodate religious conscientious objectors.
Besides, if two people of the same sex want to get married, there's no law that requires them to get married in a church or church facility. If a church doesn't want you to get married in their building, why would you WANT to? Forcing a church to compromise its position on morality is nothing less than bullying and a means by which hateful people can impose their beliefs on a religious institution.
When a churches morality is tilted in the direction of ignorance, I see no problem with people forcing them to grow up.
Also, I don't know very many churches that won't perform gay marriage... christian cults and catholics are about it.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Have the government stop recognizing any marriages at all, and only recognize civil unions. Every couple, gay or straight, would have to go to the courthouse and have a civil union, then they would be a legal couple. If they choose, they can hold any kind of marriage ceremony they want to, so they can have their religious sanctioned marriages. People would be free to have marriage ceremonies, religious or secular, without the civil union, but the government would not recognize it. A marriage could be dissolved by the church or house of worship that performed it, or simply by the couple themselves in some cases. A civil union would have to be dissolved by the government.
In other words, take sanctioning marriage completely out of the governments hands, and have them only sanction civil unions. This way, whichever religion or sect a person belongs to, they can be sure that no one they do not approve of will be married within their church.
We already do something similar in the US by requiring a government issued marriage license. Why not just take it one step further and have the government issue a civil union, a legal contract, between any couple, and leave whether or not to have a ceremony and what kind up to the couple.
It's a solution I've advocated in the past, but an unrealistic one. The government isn't going to change the word 'marriage' to 'civil union'.
Agreed. And it's not my intention to stir up hostility by saying this: Very often you find that gay proponents of gay "marriage" are mainly trying to impose a recognition of their unions as legitimate unions on their opponents.
I don't have a problem with "civil unions" since civil unions are useful even for non-gay same-sex couples. A man who doesn't have a living spouse or children, for instance, but needs some kind of partner to look after him in cases of emergency, legal proceedings, end-of-life, issues, etc. "Marriage" takes that a step further and specifically supports traditional families. It's possible that traditional families could be marginalized if the marriage institution isn't protected. I personally believe that divorce is too casual and frequent; I think government should actually enforce marriage contracts... But I'm not really one to make those kinds of arguments.
The traditional family definitely did and does exist, but I'm at a loss as to how you could possibly marginalise it? Unless your belief is that if it's not actively being promoted, then it's being marginalised, which is silly.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
I disagree of it's existence, but regardless I've found those that believe it would be marginalized believe if it's not the dominant form in society it somehow loses it's value.
Which, of course, is silly. Families have always come in many forms. The "traditional family" is merely a model of an ideal pushed on us by early Hollywood. An ideal that not everyone shares.
_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
I define "traditional marriage" as simply a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of the family structure that follows said union. There's nothing fictional or fantastic about it.
By "marginalize" I mean the destructive effects that often befall the participants within an individual family structure. Sure, children often do just fine in split families--but not always, and they frequently do suffer when parents split. I think opening the the definition of marriage to include other kinds of couples minimizes the positive effects of solid traditional marriages. If you're really going to go there, then you have to at least reconsider the legality of plural marriage, as an example.
Now, as has been suggested, you can do away with marriage entirely if you want to be equitable in the shadow of immorality (i.e. give immorality even par with morality). I expect the end result to be more harm than good, though.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
I never said it was.
Then I don't understand your argument for keeping marriage between one man and one woman.
_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Arizona initiative “Vote the Spectrum” |
03 Mar 2024, 11:41 am |
Birthday |
14 Mar 2024, 2:33 pm |
E2LA's Birthday! |
14 Apr 2024, 4:26 pm |
Happy birthday to Rob Paulsen |
11 Mar 2024, 6:18 am |