• In total there are 31 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 30 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Gay Marriage?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
atsquish

Gay Marriage?

Unread post

Do you think that gays should have the right to get married?Results (total votes = 32):Yes&nbsp25 / 78.1%&nbsp No- absolutly not!&nbsp3 / 9.4%&nbsp Nobody should. Everyone should get a civil union.&nbsp2 / 6.3%&nbsp No. They should get civil unions.&nbsp2 / 6.3%&nbsp Undecided&nbsp0 / 0.0%&nbsp
Kostya

Re: Gay Marriage?

Unread post

Yes, unless everyone decides that we need to abandon the whole idea of marriage, which might not be such a bad idea...
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Gay Marriage?

Unread post

People mean different things when they use the word 'marriage' so debates on the issue can become pretty pointless. Marriage is one of two things these days. Its a legal term or its a religious term. What I don't get is when homosexual rights advocates won't settle for a civil union deal. It would just make more sense. Given that a civil union would entitle any two people the same legal rights as a married couple, why such focus on a word? Then again I'm confused in general when it comes to marriage. If its about legal recognition of a union, then why would anyone give a @#%$ who gets that recognition? It would just be a practical step to acquire certain legal advantages. Like any legal operation, its amoral. So why are the fundies so opposed to gay marriage? If you talk about gay marriage as a religious act, then a legal operation has no relevance. If a religion is opposed to homosexuality (as most of the world's major religions are) then if you're gay and want to get married, to put it bluntly, tough @#%$. Don't bother campaigning for change on some basis other than the tenets of that religion. At any rate, why would you want to be part of a religion with which you disagree so much? I wouldn't want to deny any group secular rights based on religious opinions but thats why I reckon civil unions are appropriate. Maybe marriage should just be scrapped as a legal term. Civil unions should be the only unions acknowledged under law. Marriage would (legally) cease to exist. If a married couple wished to attain the legal rights traditionally associated with marriage, then they would have to obtain a civil union. Now, I don't really know much about this, if anyone does, let them educate me, but the purpose of marriage was to create a secure environment for reproduction, to produce systems for the handling of property rights and to protect bloodlines. SUch are the universal characteristics. It was also pretty common that women were seen as nothing but property. In most societies it was seen as little more than a contract. That is not to say that love was not a factor, but that it just wasn't an important factor. But where things start to get murky is when Christianity comes into the picture. St Paul affirmed it to be a sacrament. And the Church wished to regulate marriage more closely to ensure that people did not fall into sin. So it was really only in medieval times, that marriage as we'd recognise it came to be. But we musn't forget that marriage was designed for rather different societies. We don't live under a feudal system these days. Another significant group who contributed to shaping marriae, was the capitalists. But thats another story that would involve talking about women's rights and other anal b.s. Getting back from my rant, isn't marriage supposed to be a partnership. Both parties are supposed to live their lives as one. The laws that exist are supposed to enable married couples to do so. The tax, estate planning, government, employment, medical, death and all other legal benifits are designed to help maintain the union. But why maintain the union? Why do we seek to do so? I feel that it keeps coming back to kids. So what point is there to a marriage, that won't result in kids, be it hetrosexual or homosexual? Why give those rights? I'm searching on this issue. I haven't really got concrete opinions on it. If anyone has any answers or even opinions........
stevepainter

Re: Gay Marriage?

Unread post

Nial,You're right that there are really 2 sides to the "marriage" issue. There's the religious side and the legal side.On the religious side, churches are free to "marry" anyone they wish. I've attended a few Unitarian Universalist churches and know of a number of same-sex couples who were "married" there. Of course, those "marriages" have no legal weight. Which brings us to the legal issue and the domain of the government.On the legal side, marriages and civil unions in most states are prohibited to same-sex couples. Even in the states that have passed laws granting legal status to same-sex civil unions, you must understand that these unions are sort of a "marriage lite". They do not grant all of the rights and privileges afforded heterosexual couples.In the State of New Jersey where I reside for example, a law was recently enacted legalizing same-sex civil unions. However, that law only affords 3 of the approximately 20 rights available to heterosexual couples. While I think that laws like these are a step in the right direction, I can understand why homosexuals are not satisfied. No one is asking the government to force any religious group to chagne their rules. They are only asking the state to offer the same rights, privilileges and responsibilities to same-sex couples that heterosexual couples enjoy.You said:Quote:I feel that it keeps coming back to kids. So what point is there to a marriage, that won't result in kids, be it hetrosexual or homosexual? Why give those rights?I don't agree that it is just about children. However, even if it is, your statement falls short unless you propose barring same-sex couples from adopting, having children with assistence (in vitro, surrogate mother, etc.), or even raising children that they had prior to their same-sex relationship.The current administration has been trying to present same-sex marriage as being anti-family. This couldn't be further from the truth. Barring same-sex couples with children from marriage is really anti-family. It's just a type of family they don't approve of.
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

??

Unread post

Ah yes, I should point out that I'm opposed to gay people adopting and I'm rather iffy when it comes to having children with assistence.To be honest, I won't explain why just yet, because it would be off-topic.And I should clarify that I was referring to the French form of civil union which would allow gay couples pretty much the same rights as hetrosexual couples. What I think I'd like to see, is the removal of marriage as a legal term. Only civil unions would recieve recognition. THose who obtained civil unions would recieve certain legal rights (for example next of kin status), however I don't see the point of giving couples certain financial privledges. I'd like to see financial benefits reserved for people who have kids, be they single, hetrosexual or homosexual.But then again, my views on this issue are constantly changing.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Keeping the Faith

Unread post

I think, there are two primary points that all of us progressive Christians must make again and again in these coming debates:(1.) First, in relation to the debate over same-sex marriages, we must work constantly to impress on the public, including our friends, families, and fellow congregants that there are two distinct facets to marriage in this country that must be carefully distinguished from each other: sacred services performed by various faith communities on the one hand, and civil contracts witnessed, ratified, and filed with the state on the other. Same-gender couples, like Jeanne and Ellie, have had the benefit of sacred rites within their faith communities for decades, in some cases. But none of these couples are treated legally as married because those church ceremonies were not accompanied by state ratified contracts of marriage. Making same-gender marriage legal will do absolutely nothing to faith communities. Those who currently perform unions will continue to do so, and those who don't, will continue to be free to refuse. The only difference will be in the legal standing of the couples in relationship to state and national laws. Most Americans, it seems, do not really recognize or understand this distinction between civil contract and sacred rites. Unlike many European countries where couples have two separate ceremonies, one at the city clerk's office and one in the church, in this country we let pastors act as both religious functionaries and civil clerks at the same time. Consequently, many Americans don't realize that the religious service is not what "marries" them in the eyes of the state but instead the signing of the civil contract. Because most Americans don't realize this distinction, they believe that religious groups and church spokespeople should have the right to determine who can and who cannot get married. This lack of clarity about the dual nature of marriage has to be changed, if same-gender marriage is to have any chance of succeeding.I think many of you who are pastors are in especially good positions to make this important distinction clear. Some of you might even want to consider joining the movement of pastors who are no longer willing to also act as agents of the state by signing marriage licenses, thereby forcing couples to have two ceremonies. But whatever you do or don't do, continually making the distinction between the civil and sacred aspects of marriage is an essential educational effort for these next several years.(2.) The second point we all need to be making is that Christianity, like other faith communities, does not speak with one voice. The religious right has been very successful in selling their version of Christianity as the only "right" version. We must become ever more vocal and visible as equally "right" Christians who see the teachings of Jesus and the church in very different ways from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and company. We must work to re-claim the voice of the gospel for social justice for LGBT people. We cannot continue to let Christianity go to the one with the most money or the greatest media access. We need to flaunt our views, our lives, and our loves as we never have before, and most importantly, we need to flaunt ourselves as Christians.These two points are vital to make in the short-term future of backlash, debate, and political posturing. What happens after that is harder to predict. There is a wonderful quote from Mahatma Ghandi about the course of movements for human liberation. Ghandi said, "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."I wish I had a crystal ball that would tell me when that "win" will take place for LGBT people and the allies in the UMC, other faith communities, and society-at-large. All I do know is that keeping the faith into the future is always a risk, but it is a risk I hope all of us are willing to take. Many people have run this race ahead of us and many are running it with us still, and many may have to run it after we are gone. When each of us comes to the end of our time, my hope and prayer is that we each may honestly be able to say, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."Keeping the FaithSt. Mark's United Methodist Church Sacramento, California Fifth Anniversary Celebration of Jeanne Barnett & Ellie Charlton's Holy Union January 17, 2004 by Prof. Mary A. TolbertCenter For Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministrywww.clgs.org/marriage/ser...lbert.html
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

A Progressive Religious perspective on Marriage

Unread post

The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies' (CLGS) Marriage Project is a resource for the general public, clergy, members of congregations, and the press.This website provides scholarly and religious resources on marriage in the United States with the aim of promoting views of marriage that are more open, more just, and more inclusive of all citizens regardless of sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. What is marriage and what are the current issues surrounding marriage? We answer these and other questions in our marriage FAQs, and also list each US state's legal definition of marriage.As a further resource, we have collected press releases addressing current news and topics surrounding marriage. You can learn more about the historical, legal, and cultural contexts for understanding marriage through articles by Stephen Pope, Ralph Hexter, Robert E. Goss, James Alison, and more. What are others saying? Read inspiring stories, educational sermons and pastoral resources, and other statements of support for same-sex marriage. We also provide descriptive links to other resources dealing with religious issues associated with same-sex marriage and civil unions. www.clgs.org/marriage/index.html
Tiarella

Re: Gay Marriage?

Unread post

The civil unions some cities/states provide do not allow for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits.Why go to the trouble of creating a whole new duplicate structure, just to reserve the word 'marriage' for heterosexuals? Think of the bureaucratic costs!I think many of the people whose gut reaction is to deny marriage rights to gays do not know many gay couples, or don't realize they know 'em. I grew up in a neighborhood with half-a-dozen or more stable gay couples. They weren't any different than the heterosexual ones, except that, unlike the heterosexuals, there were no separations or divorces, and there was one murder. The murder was done by an anti-gay predator. I see no threat to our society from gay marriage; I know the severe damage that anti-homosexuality causes society.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Gay Marriage?

Unread post

Heterosexual.Welcome! I hope you will be sticking around and contributing!!Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of PainHEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. PEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 8/28/04 5:17 pm
morallyambiguouskeptic

Re: Gay Marriage?

Unread post

Right now 21 people altogether have voted in the poll. 18 have voted 'yes' the government should allow homosexuals to marry. Personally I voted 'yes'. I just wanted to ask the 18 others that voted 'yes' with me whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. I'm heterosexual.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”