Personally I think that its only fair that Gays dont get away with having a relationship for a few years and then when it all goes horribly wrong one of them doesn’t get taken to the cleaners financially.
Fair does,if everyone else has to suffer then its only right that they share in it as well.
I appreciate you posting this in a thread where you probably don’t feel very welcome, but the bottom line is that the intolerance towards homosexuality very much is a religious issue. It comes down to self-righteous people using the Bible as their excuse to be intolerant. I have no problem with the idea that churches can religiously marry anyone or no one, as they see fit, but I have a problem with same-sex couples being denied married benefits by the state because of what is essentially religious intolerance.
I mostly agree with you here except it’s not just the religious crusaders who are and who express their intolerance this way. This might be almost exactly what you’re saying, but it just seems to me a lot of self-righteous people who do express themselves, even when they are not religious, just find the Bible and the cover of religion in general a convenient and pre-conceived talking point to reject something they fear and/or don’t understand. I don’t need them to love me or understand me and what I do. Just to stay out of my bedroom and my relationships.
I think pmat is wrong (just what did God’s voice sound like when he whispered in your ear what he thought about man-man, woman-woman relationships?) but appreciate that he realizes it’s not his call.
pmat, here in California, Prop 8 was bankrolled primarily by the Mormon church and the Catholic church (strange bedfellows, eh?), and one of the major arguments for it was that same-sex marriage would compromise the religious freedom of Christians, which (1) was a lie and (2) essentially meant that the state should declare Christianity its official religion and ignore the rights of those religions which do believe in same-sex marriage, like Tao Buddhism. You can say that it shouldn’t be a religious issue, and I think we’ll all agree with you in this thread–but you can’t say that it isn’t a religious issue.
I think it’s about time to reprint this letter, BTW:
Great OP. Seriously, I’m [del]horny[/del] touched.
On edit: And in all serious, I’m totally with you on this. Both on believing it should be legal and believing it will be legal.
I see this too. People who never read the bible, never go to church, but do cheat on their spouses, taxes, etc, will suddenly get religious when cornered on gay issues. It’s not religion at all. It’s just fear and hate.
Unfortunately, religion knows how to play these people like a fiddle.
You have a perfectly valid point. I believe it’s a religious issue on the surface, but deep down, it’s about fear and intolerance. Those are the issues which deserve our attention and we’d be entirely remiss to focus our energy elsewhere. I’m very certain in my beliefs that it’s not a fundamental religious issue. I don’t think religion itself should be held responsible for the people who pervert it. My personal belief is that correctly practiced religion would not lead to terrorism or oppression. I will never deny that religion enables terrorism and oppression, but it also enables a whole host of benevolence. I’m sure many of you would agree. It’s not necessary for a Christian to be against gay marriage rights and that’s why I feel it’s appropriate to question the motives of those who are against them, as well as the faith of those who attempt to tie God to the government.
Ah, I see. Yes, I can buy that. Of course, that cuts into my opinion on religion in general, which I don’t think is appropriate to go into here (since I’m mostly glad to have your support and don’t feel a need to be divisive about it).
OTOH:
For all intents and purposes, religion itself is a collection of religious people. If religious leaders pervert it, and religious people go along with it (IIRC, some 75-80% of church-goers voted Yes on Prop 8), sooner or later that perversion has to reflect on the religion itself.
On the gripping hand:
I really wish more religious people thought like you do.
It’s only a pit thread when someone in all honesty and belief argues that gays should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as heteros.
Speaking of the marriage = man + woman thing, is marriage defined anywhere in the bible? I’d really like to know; I promise I’m not being a smart ass.
Leviticus. Also, you can’t eat bacon.
Sorry.
What I’d refer to as “religion” does not reflect the people. I’m of the opinion that religion is not a collection of people and their views, but God and his laws, which are unchanging. In that very amusing letter, we saw that if things went according to plan, I’d be put to death for going to work tomorrow. We see that it’s not the law which has changed, but the people. Obviously, some of those diversions from the law seem to be for the good, like me working tomorrow. Others are for the bad, like banning gay marriage. Those diversion are not based on the law, because they are a diversion from the law- a diversion from God. The decision rests completely on the individual and religion plays no part in it.
God’s laws - love your god, love your neighbour, love yourself. Everything else - mankind’s fiddlings.
Clothahump has popped into the 436 other currently active SSM threads to ask rhetorical questions about why we should be granting rights to people who make silly lifestyle choices (ie., engaging in teh buttsecks). I’m sure he’ll be along to foul this one too.
Well, that’s it then. I could live with a God who objected to SSM, but when it comes to bacon, any God who’d prohibit the consumption of that is not a God worthy of worship. I bet there’s plenty of bacon in Hell.
Ought to be nice and crispy, too.
That’s fine for your personal purposes, but the fact is that, as a group with a substantial role in politics, religion is a group of citizens. See, this is the very problem: some Christians seem to think they can define religious freedom and religion itself for society as a whole.
By the way, your definition seems to exclude non-monotheistic (or even non-Abrahamic) faiths from qualifying as “religion”.
It occurred to me that one way of demonstrating support for gay marriage would be if straight couples went on a marriage strike, and let the church and the state know that they will live in sin as a protest until gay marriage is legalised.
Has this been tried anywhere? I could imagine quite a movement starting, and one that might shake up a few bigots.
Not really. From what I can tell, it’s a minority view.
It’s not as extreme, but in the University of Michigan academic community (and probably elsewhere) married folks have taken to referring to their spouses as ‘‘partners.’’ Not husband or wife, just partner. They figure it’s a good way to bring consciousness to the inherent unfairness of marriage discrimination.