Trying to understand the anti-gay marriage people

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry - where is your crystal ball? Civil rights have nothing to do with the self-determination of religious bodies. Yes, they should be able to have their own beliefs, and if they choose not to sanction a union - of any sort - that is their own right. But you make gross presumptions w/o substantiation... *shakes head*


M.

That's just silly... pastors and priests don't have to marry anybody they don't want to now... even heterosexual couples.

Why do you believe marriage is a religious ceremony? It isn't... you can be married by judges, justices of the peace, ship captains, etc. Priests and ministers may marry you, and it may have extra significance for those of that church, but marriage is a civil matter, sanctioned by the Government.

I do have a personal moral objection to homosexuals due to religious reasons but I allow other people the right to behave how they wish so I am not offended by gay people and I don't hate them or anything. I have no issue with them being legally joined because I can understand how they want the permanence and the benefits of being legally joined. I do, however, have an objection to using the word 'marriage'. 'Marriage' has always meant the joining of a man and a woman. I personally hate it when words are added to the dictionary or changed meanings because of incorrect use and such. So therefore I don't like the missuse or changing of the meaning of the word 'marriage'. That's my only issue

Last edited by mitharatowen on 15 Dec 2008, 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, I see where timesidead is coming from here. I can see how it could happen that a pastor who refuses to officiate a gay ceremony could be sued for discrimination.

Then again, why would a gay couple try to force someone who doesn't agree with their union to marry them?
Don't know ... but someone probaly will. There's always at least one person to try anything.

A pastor in Canada was fined $2,500 for refusing to marry a gay couple. In theory, what is deemed "civil rights" for homosexuals have nothing to do with the self-determination of religious bodies; in practice they will gradually eliminate religious freedom.
http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2008/11/c ... x-marriage

The economic arguments against gay marriage have been more interesting to me than the ones over the meaning of the word "marriage" (which I always found quite trivial and nitpicky), but they've largely been proved wrong.

That's quite an interesting conclusion to reach from that article, I'm seeing something completely different.

Church and state should, of course, be seen as distinct entities. This has been shown time and time again to reduce friction between religious (and secular) communities.

Last edited by Hector on 15 Dec 2008, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Trying to argue rationally:
Married couples generally get tax cuts. This is done to make it financially less unattractive to procreate and raise children. Society depends on future generations for various reasons, so this makes sense (although it is not clear and often debated to what extent tax cuts influence the decision to procreate) .
Gay couples are generally not allowed to adopt children (whether children develop normally under these circumstances has been proven neither right nor wrong in this thread, so for me the question whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children is still unsolved).
->From my point of view it doesn't make much sense to give homosexual couples the same tax cuts just for being married.

Forming an other kind of legal partnership without these tax cuts would be a different issue.

I second that.

Good point soaring, though my own convictions lie in favour of gay adoption. Interestingly, though, the prevailing viewpoint in the US has been for gay couples to be allowed to have civil unions with all the legal rights of marriage, presumably including this tax cut. Obama explicitly favoured this, and I seem to recall McCain and Palin also supporting it but later being forced to backtrack. So this argument clearly does not seem to be as popular as the "meaning of the word marriage" issue, which again I don't see the fuss about.

This is why we all should push for a new ammendment to the constitution. The ammendment would define marriage as a "religious term" and strike it from all laws. The US government would no longer recognize marriage - only "civil unions" and could not descriminate as to who would be allowed to enter into such unions. This really isn't any different than it is now - you're not officially married in the government's view unless you fill out and return your marriage license.

Religious organizations would be allowed to set rules as to who can marry under their organization. Since the marriage does not have any legal weight, groups would not be able to sue an organization for unfair rules. They would have to try to change the rules of the organization through other (legal) methods, or move on to another religious organization of their choosing that better fits their beliefs.

My knowledge on this issue is very limited, so I don't really have an oppinion on that. But I will not be against gay adoption if someone proves sufficiently that there are (at least with a high probability) no major drawbacks for these children and normal development is not hindered.

Compared to what? Heterosexual parents or life in an orphanage? Even Bill O'Reilly prefers gay adoption over raising children in an orphanage.

An article with links to studies:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150001

Well, its simple really, it's just not what the word means. I don't understand why most people object to it, though, since they, in general, have no issues with amending or adding to the meaning of other words. I don't see why they can't make their own word for a same sex union or something of that nature. If that were the case, I would have no objection. Unless, of course, they start infringing religious freedom.

You can't force non-governmental organizations to engage in practices that are against the practitioner's religious beliefs.

The only NGOs or professionals who aren't allowed to refuse to do things based on religious beliefs are doctors, military, police, etc.

A doctor can't refused to treat someone because his religion forbids it. Say, a male Muslim doctor in the U.S. can't refuse to touch a dying woman to treat her. Military people aren't allowed to refuse to serve on a religious day, for example. Police aren't allowed to refuse to go somewhere on the grounds that it is "unclean" according to their religion, like refusing to enter a brothel. Certain people have jobs where society can be put into danger if they can start refuse to do things.

The only circumstances in which it would be legal to force a priest to marry gay people, were if the priest was a Chaplain in the military, marrying people was their assigned duty on a base or outpost, and it was legal for 2 gay soldiers to be married at the base or outpost. It is my understanding that Chaplains in the military have certain exemptions from their churches to follow orders first.

On another note:

Wasn't there an episode of "The Simpsons" where Bart, back in history, unites all the branches of Christianity in a fight against "monogamous gays"? That was pretty funny.

No one has approached me on the issue of Homosexuals marrying each other without their own presumptions about what I do and do not believe, or what I should and should not believe.

I have never had a discussion with a pro-same-sex marriage person without them becoming angry and then insulting me in every way that they can think of. I don't approach the issue from a religious perspective, or even one of morality and ethics. The only thing I ask is, "What's in it for me to approve of people of the same gender marrying each other?" That's when they start getting angry and calling me "Selfish" among other things more profane.

Yet, isn't the entire issue of same-sex marriage a selfish one for those who want it? So why can't I express my own selfishness in exchange? Isn't it right and ethical that if someone needs my approval to have something, that they first offer something of due compensation for my favor? Isn't it fair that I receive something from them in exchange for at least my tacit approval?

Otherwise, fuggeddahbowditt!

You have a point there. Compared to life in an orphanage an adoption by a homosexual couple is at least more likely to be just as good/better than compared to the "typical" case.
Though drawing the lines here will most probably be very complicated to say the least as there are many different scenarios that need to be compared (orphanage, typical family, what about in vitro....?).
And I am certainly the wrong person to draw these lines.... as long as it is reasonable in the end, I am happy....