An article, about..you know it, gay marriage, but more..

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

chrissyrun
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,788
Location: Hell :)

25 Jun 2011, 9:56 pm

Howard Chua-Eoan wrote:

I woke up this morning to discover that, despite my best efforts, I was still only married to my job.
I had spent part of the night in Greenwich Village with the crowds outside the Stonewall Inn celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state. I proposed to several passersby but every single one laughed. The thumping of "Y.M.C.A." on an adjacent boombox killed any possibility of romance. (Why is that song always played at weddings?)

I had wandered down from a party about 10 blocks north, in Chelsea, one of New York City's gay enclaves. The gathering at that apartment was slightly surreal. It appeared to be familiar: handsome young men flirting with each other over sweets and alcohol. But now they had a complex new dimension to navigate through — albeit the kind of calculus that heterosexuals can do in their sleep. Or when they sleep with each other. Or when they wake up and discover who they have slept with. It's the possibility of marriage, lurking subtly somewhere in one's head. Imagine all the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that will emerge as that little formula weaves itself into the lives of gay New Yorkers. Soon, we can have the kind of domestic life straight people have. One day, we may no longer even be gay. Just the people next door. No more parades.

Of course, that's not going to happen soon. No matter that New York is the largest state of the Union to hold that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is equal to that of a man and a woman. California, the largest state in the Union, had that distinction for a few months before electoral and judicial jiu jitsu tied marriage up in knots there. There are 44 more states to go and a rowdy presidential campaign season that is bound to roil a whole range of political bases. And who knows if the legalization of gay marriage in New York, because it is New York, will actually work against marriage equality across the country. Could an exodus of gay people from the rest of the U.S. to the Empire State sap the will (and pocketbooks) of campaigns to legalize marriage in, say, Missouri or Minnesota or Kansas? Just saying.

But in one very important way, marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York, even 30 days from now when the law goes into effect. That is because the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that entangle the domestic lives of straight people often have another component — religion. And religious institutions have an exemption in the new law from accommodating gay people. It was key to the passage of the legislation.

Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't going to be the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.

I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And, as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.

The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here we will have to continue to march in our parades and to sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up this morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore.


Read more...article source http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... z1QLZIQAkm

The annoying part is highlighthed.

The truth is bolded.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

25 Jun 2011, 10:47 pm

Why is that annoying? It's some gay guy musing over how the rulers of the congregation he goes to don't think if him as equal, despite the law that is now in effect. He's sad about it, but of course acknowledges that he has no right to force other people to change their minds.



chrissyrun
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,788
Location: Hell :)

26 Jun 2011, 12:06 am

Well, if he knows, then why is he making a fit about it? Because secretly he wants to change it, when he knows it is wrong.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

26 Jun 2011, 12:25 am

Quote:
Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't going to be the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.

I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And, as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.

The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here we will have to continue to march in our parades and to sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up this morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore.[/u]


Quote:
The annoying part is highlighthed.

The truth is bolded.


Even if New York did not include a provision to permit churches to excluded gays, it still would have been legal under the federal case law Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Private organizations are free to choose who they want to allow in. Different religions have different rules, but for Christianity, you cannot be a Christian and gay at the same time. The Bible is specific not to keep company with people that try to be both gay and Christian. Rather than trying to create a thought crime by trying to change core doctrine, gays are free under the 1st amendment to find a [apostate] church that accepts them, or create a whole new [apostate] church, find a new religion, or even create a new religion.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

26 Jun 2011, 12:30 am

I think the United Church of Christ denomination accepts same sex marriage. Just go there.

Or start your own gay church.



Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,133
Location: Arlington, Texas

26 Jun 2011, 1:43 am

John_Browning wrote:
Even if New York did not include a provision to permit churches to excluded gays, it still would have been legal under the federal case law Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Private organizations are free to choose who they want to allow in. Different religions have different rules, but for Christianity, you cannot be a Christian and gay at the same time. The Bible is specific not to keep company with people that try to be both gay and Christian. Rather than trying to create a thought crime by trying to change core doctrine, gays are free under the 1st amendment to find a [apostate] church that accepts them, or create a whole new [apostate] church, find a new religion, or even create a new religion.


With exclusionary policies like that, I wouldn't be surprised if most gay people wouldn't even want to be married in a church to begin with. I sure as hell wouldn't.


_________________
What fresh hell is this?


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,018
Location: Houston, Texas

26 Jun 2011, 1:47 am

I would like to go to various places in the Deep South and places like Utah and Idaho, and build golden calves on every street corner, then *order* everybody to strut around nude and perform various non-procreational sexual acts (aka sodomy) in public.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

26 Jun 2011, 2:19 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
I would like to go to various places in the Deep South and places like Utah and Idaho, and build golden calves on every street corner, then *order* everybody to strut around nude and perform various non-procreational sexual acts (aka sodomy) in public.

The Mormons already have golden calves in their temples, but they wear weird robes and they probably don't do anything that could be sexual in that part of the temple.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

26 Jun 2011, 2:20 am

Descartes wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Even if New York did not include a provision to permit churches to excluded gays, it still would have been legal under the federal case law Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Private organizations are free to choose who they want to allow in. Different religions have different rules, but for Christianity, you cannot be a Christian and gay at the same time. The Bible is specific not to keep company with people that try to be both gay and Christian. Rather than trying to create a thought crime by trying to change core doctrine, gays are free under the 1st amendment to find a [apostate] church that accepts them, or create a whole new [apostate] church, find a new religion, or even create a new religion.


With exclusionary policies like that, I wouldn't be surprised if most gay people wouldn't even want to be married in a church to begin with. I sure as hell wouldn't.

That's assuming that every lifestyle has something beneficial to contribute to the church by their participation.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,133
Location: Arlington, Texas

26 Jun 2011, 2:24 am

John_Browning wrote:
Descartes wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Even if New York did not include a provision to permit churches to excluded gays, it still would have been legal under the federal case law Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Private organizations are free to choose who they want to allow in. Different religions have different rules, but for Christianity, you cannot be a Christian and gay at the same time. The Bible is specific not to keep company with people that try to be both gay and Christian. Rather than trying to create a thought crime by trying to change core doctrine, gays are free under the 1st amendment to find a [apostate] church that accepts them, or create a whole new [apostate] church, find a new religion, or even create a new religion.


With exclusionary policies like that, I wouldn't be surprised if most gay people wouldn't even want to be married in a church to begin with. I sure as hell wouldn't.

That's assuming that every lifestyle has something beneficial to contribute to the church by their participation.


What substantial benefits does anybody have to contribute to the church, besides donations? :roll:


_________________
What fresh hell is this?


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

26 Jun 2011, 2:38 am

chrissyrun wrote:
Well, if he knows, then why is he making a fit about it? Because secretly he wants to change it, when he knows it is wrong.

Wishing something were otherwise, and wishing that people would change, is a far cry from plotting mind control. Even if one talks about it, or writes it down.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

26 Jun 2011, 3:47 am

A church is private property and the government has no authority to tell them who they have to serve just as the government should have no authority to tell you who you can not serve.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

26 Jun 2011, 7:27 am

chrissyrun wrote:
Well, if he knows, then why is he making a fit about it? Because secretly he wants to change it, when he knows it is wrong.


Or he wants to change it because he knows his church is wrong.
Gays make up what 2%-5% of the population?
I know that within the LDS subculture gay folks can cause a lot of pain.
but that is because they come out at 40 after they have 5 or 6 kids.
If y'all would just let them come out before they marry women it would
not be so painful.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

26 Jun 2011, 11:54 am

The Episcopal Church allows gay people to marry. They're a bunch of liberal extremists, aren't they?

Note: Whiskeypal...I mean, Episcopaleans have long been known as "God's Frozen People," and they have tended to be proud of this moniker.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

26 Jun 2011, 12:06 pm

chrissyrun wrote:
Well, if he knows, then why is he making a fit about it? Because secretly he wants to change it, when he knows it is wrong.
You really are paranoid, aren't you?

Have you realized yet how lackluster and juvenile your religion is?



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

26 Jun 2011, 12:20 pm

I like the law. Exemption included. I hope more states and countries (including mine) follow the steps.

Seriously, if you are a gay person why would you want to be married by a Church that hates gay people? I am pretty sure there will be churches that will give Gay marriage as the law is now approved and then you can have your bell and whistles. The most bigoted sects won't (of course), but that's great because it will help us sort them out.


_________________
.