Why do people still not accept homosexuality today ?

Post Reply New Topic

Look, I see that you feel that your heart is in the right place, but this concept of trying to make civil partnerships the norm and treated equally is really an overcomplication, simply because some straight marriages already included no religious aspects, and you are going to have a ridiculous task to make them seen as more equal.

I have put the example out before, but you would probably have examples of secular schools being unable to say the word "marriage", and would have to correct any children that said their parents are married to instead say that have a civil union. That is if we want to make civil unions the norm and marriages just something decided by some sort of religious belief, but I am pretty sure that conservative people would throw a fit over being censored, but I think that is going to be only one of the few ways that you going to make same sex partnerships be seen as equal without making gay marriage a thing.

My perception otherwise is that the argument has been used as a sort of dog whistle to pretend that it is only an argument of churches being able to keep their word or concept and that they are completely fair to ask it. But they have not had a monopoly on it in quite some time, so complaining by religious groups now of their religious rights being trampled by some religious groups having their choice to allow gay marriage, or leaving religion out of it, something else is actually being argued.

I don't know why you are so stuck on keeping marriage as only a Christian thing. Like marriage is a very common tradition across the planet, and with different religions (not just Christian), and you are stuck on the idea that tradition means religion, since historically religion had very strong control over daily practices like unions. But this standard would require agreeing that the church would get to decide who gets punished for a crime and what the punishment would be, or what food standards should be, or that really know shopping would be allowed on Sunday. Religious groups don't get to be the only ones who get to decide what is and is not secular.

These sort of arguments are exactly indicative of why people don't accept homosexuality today, being held to weird double standards that can only exist if what they say that is being argued is not what it is really about.

Why? You need to register your marriage now, which is simply entering into a civil partnership. The church ceremony has no force of law and is purely symbolic. So churches can offer ceremonies and you can continue to register your marriage. You can even design your own ceremony if you would like.

Whether you call a partnership a union, marriage, blend, or coupling does not really matter. You simply need a public system to register that so you can get the benefits that partnership brings under law.

There really is nothing complex about same-sex marriage, beyond having certain religious groups accept the ceremony. And if they don't, there is nothing stopping you from doing that anyway--you just won't have that particular group endorse it, but you can use the ritual.

Now, whether you have the legal right to a civil union is really the crux. It is the government that gives that. That is what needs to be preserved.

That is kind of my point that it really is not complex and whether a religious group accepts a ceremony should mean nothing in regards to the law. Pretending like a religious group is losing power by not enforcing their opinions onto other people in regards to their marriage, is an overcomplication. And it has been what's been used to try and influence the general public to not accept homosexuality still.

It is how you get religious people going into places like Africa to try and create movements that demonise gay people, which in turn creates things like the bellow video.

Totally agree. It is all about power and advancing the ideals of the in group.

"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression." -- attributed to many

For centuries, The Church had exclusive privilege of performing a "real" marriage.  Then civil marriages by a judge or Justice of The Peace shared this privilege.  The Church was against it, and demanded that any of its members receiving a civil marriage must have that marriage "blessed" by The Church or their children were illegitimate and could not be baptized, meaning that as long as the parents' marriage had not been so "blessed", their children would go straight to Hell if they died.  This is a doctrine made up by the leaders of The Church, and is found nowhere in the Bible.

(Someone please correct me if I am wrong.)

Nowadays, same-sex marriage is legal, the threat of Hell is practically useless as a motivator to fill the pews with people (and the collection plates with money), and church memberships are dwindling as the parishioners grow old and die while their descendants see The Church -- as well as the Sacraments of baptism, communion, marriage, et cetera -- as unnecessary, useless, and wastes of time.  More and more youngsters go through the marriage ceremony in their parents' churches only because their parents offer to pay for it, and not because they believe a church wedding is important.

The Church sees this dwindling of numbers and wonders what they can do to reverse it ... and of course, the one thing they could do, they cannot do without compromising their "G^D-given mandate".  They would have to re-write their Bible to be more inclusive of the very same people they have damned as sinners for the last 2000 years.

That just ain't gonna happen.

So, because a wedding between a man and a woman in The Church is now considered equal to a civil ceremony between two men or two women in a state-run park, the The State and "sinners" now share the same privileged status with The Church and its "holy" membership, and the leaders of The Church feel threatened and oppressed because their authority over The People is slipping away.