Here’s something I’ve been wondering about this issue for a while. I know it’s possible to be opposed to gay marriage, yet not actually think of gay people as subhuman or deviants. What I want to know is, given a person’s stance on this issue, how does that translate to one’s general attitude towards gays?
Basically, I’m asking this because I’ve been pondering the polls that both reflect a general opposition to gay marriage in this country AND an increasing acceptance of gay people. How do we reconcile this? What does America, and the conservative politican on the Hill, think about gay people?
Could you expand on this? I don’t see how one can be amenable to witholding a commonly granted civic right from an entire subset of people based solely on their sexuality, and still consider them on par with the rest of the populace.
I guess I was unclear. I should have said, “I know it’s possible to be opposed to laws specifically legalizing gay marriage…” At least, that’s the impression I get from the (generally conservative) legal experts who opposed the recent Supreme Court decision on grounds that sounded purely legal.
Most religions consider homosexuality to be a sin(with good reason,if you look at “sin” in general,it seems to be a list of common sense rules,that kept man from destroying his own kind over the last 5000 years - widespread homosexuality could have easily destroyed man kind when the population was lower.),and the members of those religions feel that turning sinful sodomy into holy matrimony is not only a blasphemy to God,but also to marriage as a holy union period.
I personally feel that marriage is the combining of two separates into one union,and I don’t feel that its possible to combine two positives.
I have less trouble with the idea of recognizing non-married partnerships regardless of sexuality, than with the idea of calling something that is really the anti-thesis of marriage by the same name or otherwise presume some kind of equal footing.
A marriage and a gay partnership are very much NOT the same.
I think Darph illustrates an important factor in why I think it is incredibly backwards for the US to hold this policy.
It is NOTHING but RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. That’s all it is.
Their religion says it’s bad, and so, not content with living by their own convictions, they try their best to force their own religious dogma on the rest of the populace.
There is NO social, legal, or moral reason why gay marriage should be illegal. The ONLY reason is that on some book of mythology it says it’s a bad thing.
I’m with Aankh I don’t see how opposing gay marraige can be reconciled with treating these people as second-class citizens.
Marriage is itself a religious doctrine, Without religion the roots of marriage would not exist, and would not be a part of our society, so if you want to abolish religious “holy” martrimony,why not abolish marriage period eh - it would certainly put an end to a lot of legal headaches.
:rolleyes: As I’ve pointed out before, gay people have the exact same civic rights as heterosexuals. There are no laws in any state that say you can’t get married if you’re gay. Now, they don’t have the right to marry someone of the same sex – but neither do heterosexuals. I know it sounds like semantics, but it’s important – we’re not talking about people being excluded because of their sexuality, but because of the way marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman.
I have friends and coworkers who I have great respect for who happen to be gay. And on this board there are posters – like Homebrew and gobear – who often impress me. I certainly don’t think of them as subhuman in any way, and I wouldn’t dream of telling them how to live their life, sexually or otherwise.
However, I have a strong conviction – and I freely admit it is based on my perspective as a Christian – that sex belongs between a married man and woman. And so while the sex lives of my gay colleagues are none of my business, when it comes to my opinions on public policy, I will stand by my convictions of what marriage should be.
Are you saying that before christianity there was no such thing as marriage?
I’m actually asking (you or a historican whom might know), as far as I know, the word might not have been the same, but the relationship was.
Besides marriage has become a secular matter. It is a legal contract between two people who care about one another.
In that context there is NO reason why it should be illegal for ANY two people to enter into this agreement. EXCEPT the objections of the religious majority, based on on a few passages of a religious book.
No one is saying “hey, christians, you now have to marry gay people. Not only that, but youhave to marry them in your churches!”
Nope. But the legal rights for gay couples should be respected.
It’s so ludricous to me. I can’t even wrap my mind around the concept.
It’s like having an Amish majority in the politicla process passing laws that do not allow the rest of the people to use modern conviniences simply because they ‘believe’ it’s wrong.
IANAL, but weren’t there miscegnation laws that had similar justification, and were struck down? Also, can’t one turn this into a gender-discrimination issue by phrasing it as women being allowed to marry a certain type of people, but men not allowed to, and vice versa?
What prejudice? It IS the christian right who opposes the legalization of gay marriage, is it not? I’ll be more specific: judeo-christian religion. Better?
So you have a problem with the word ‘holy’. So how about legalizing just ‘marriage’. Cut out the holy part all together if you want.
THAT’S preciesly my point. It is a religious belief that this is wrong. There is NO other reason why gay marriage cannot be legal.
So back to my amish example, what is the difference if they were the majority and decreed, based solely on their religious beliefs, that technology is the ‘devil’s work’ and is hereby outlawed? How is that ANY different than jude-christians and muslims decreeing the same of gay marriage based simply on religious dogma?
And I’m not bashing the amish her,e I don’t know much about their culture, but I hjave tremendous respect for them simply BECAUSE to me they appear to be completely different from the religious right in this country.
They have outdated (to me) ideals and religious rules that they DO NOT try and force on the rest of us, but instead CHOOSE themselves to live by.
Why can;t you do the same thing? What do you think allowing gay marriage to be legal will do to christians? Do yout hink you’ll be forced to marry a gay person or something?
Wow, I think the one in need of pity is you. Marriage is nothing ‘holy’ in my eyes. It is a special commitment between myself and the person I love. God doesn;t enter into it.
Are you saying that unless you believe in the ‘holyness’ of marriage (and you are therefore implying that only judeo-christian and muslim religious people need apply) it would mean nothing?
So you’re saying that, in this day and age, marriage cannot be recognised as a secular contract affirming love and commitment between two people?! Well, all those atheists out there will be shocked to know that their marriages are shams!
Marriage does have a religious history. That doesn’t mean it has to have the same connotations today. Social traditions and customs evolve. Change happens.
Kinthalis already provided the proper reply to that later, unnecessarily insulting part. In any case, smiling broadly while being dismissive of others does not make it OK.
However, what you miss is that in this debate there’s a common conflation of TWO things: sacramental matrimony and civil marriage. Civil Marriage is NOT a recent invention, it has existed since ancient times. It IS a contract establishing legal rights and obligations and creating bonds between families. On top of that, it’s advantageous if the people involved should be entering a loving bond of shared lives, committing to something greater than themselves. Thus in Western Culture, we have made it customary to recognize that sacramental matrimony includes civil marriage.
Or do you among those who believe that couples who enter a civil marriage before the county clerk are “not really married”?
As to how the heck two guys (or two gals) getting together to share their lives and having that recognized and honored by society can in any way shape or form “destroy” me or my family, I await to this day an explanation of how that is. Specially considering how that only affects a very small fraction of the population-at-large.
And without certain soil conditions, the roots of a venus flytrap would not exist. But surely something else would have grown in its place. “The roots of marriage” are a basic need for people to cohabitate and symbiotically grow. Certainly that would still happen even if religion & mythology had never come along. Do you suggest otherwise? Without religion not only would there be no marriage, but there wouldn’t even be the roots of it. Is that what you’re saying?
How so? Marriages are, from a civil perspective (ie, the only perspective that matters), a contract between two people pledging fidelity to each other in perpetuity. It is emotionally and socially a statement of love and commitment.
Are you saying that gays are incapable of love, commitment and fidelity? If not, then how do you justify your statement?
I know people feel passionate on both sides of the issue… but is there a way we can drop the gay marriage debate (which has been done here many times) and go back to addressing the OP – how people can oppose gay marriage without considering gays to be “subhuman and deviant”?
