Hypothetical: About Gay Marriage...

I don't think anyone really knows.

However, I do think this is a great time to take the topic back to the initial point: What about calling it something else and ACTUALLY separating the church from the government?

 

You might have the point here, Scott but it still need a lot of paperwork to do, before it can become a reality...

 

Thanks, and right you are. I just want to know how people feel about as an idea, not even whether it would realistically work.

 

Sure, sounds good. Gays deserve the same legal rights as heteros when it comes to marriage. My view is that we create the definition of words...I think it would be easier to change the definition of marriage than to rewrite existing marriage laws w/ a new term for it. But if we need to call all (legal) marriage something else to give them the same benefits without sending oppressive bigots into a tizzy, so be it.

But I'm all about a separation of church and state. I live in Indiana and can't buy (take out) alcohol on Sundays because of religion. WTF?

 

I had to read this twice to see the obvious flaw and now I feel dumb. Scott you are asserting that Christians own/invented marriage and I find that to be flawed. Non-Christians have been getting married since before Christ. Marriage historically has been for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with religion and there is nothing illegal about getting married for benefits and not for love or anything like that. It is illegal to have more than one legal wife but it is not illegal to have lot's of partners you call wives and you all live in some commune or whatever, at least not federally illegal

You seem to keep falling back on some notion that the morality of modern Christianity, the Government, and the American culture of marriage and what it represents are all the same. I will concede they have had influence over each other as all sorts of other ideas have in the evolution of our nation but they are definitely not the same and shouldn't be. This is NOT the United Christian States of America and never has been. If Churches want to teach that gay marriage is not real marriage and the government sees fit to rule otherwise, I see no reason they cannot both agree to disagree and I would expect they would do just that for the most part.

If you are like me and live in the Bible Belt you might have trouble believing not everyone thinks marriage is a Christian concept and you might have trouble believing not everyone thinks our country is entwined in cosmic destiny with the Christian religion. But there are a whole lot of people out there who vote that are convinced marriage is something that can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and who might think marriage is not just an entitlement by the government and not just meant to be some sort of union under God thing, and they will just make their own churches.

 

This is how I think of it. If you love someone why not get married. Gay's and Lesbians aren't hurting you or anyone else. How would you feel if you were gay. I lived with a gay couple and they were the nicest people I know. Plus they were good cooks. Never went hungry.

 

You raised a good point. I still agree with the Californians though for not allowing them to stay married. I don't want to have to teach my daughter that its ok for her teacher to smooch her principle.

 

Should she have to see that if they are not homosexual? When I was in school I wasn't allowed to kiss girls in school and I don't think it was considered appropriate behavior for anyone else at school.

 

I can see how you might extract that from my statement and no, that's not what I'm asserting at all. What I'm asserting is this:

1.) Christians have a hold on the government
2.) The government defines marriage based on that hold

I'm well aware that people were getting married well before Christ even came into the picture, let alone Judaism.

What you're talking about is the ideal government, not the actual one. I'm not saying they're all the same but the Christian church has a huge influence over the decisions made by the government.

I'm not saying this is what the founding fathers intended. In fact, I believe quite the opposite but I do believe it's the way things are.

I live in California where Proposition 8 just got passed, effectively banning all future (and potentially past) gay marriages. I'm not coming from a place of hatred toward gays or Christians or government.

Overall, my position is that since Christians (and other religions, but mostly just Christians) are so offended by the notion of gay people marrying and because all gay people want are the same rights in the eyes of the government, why not give them both what they want and avoid swimming upstream to redefine 'marriage' ?

Sure, there are some gay people who want to get married by the church and there are some Christians who don't want gay people to have rights as couples (civil ceremonies OR marriages) in the eyes of the government, but I think a majority of both sides just wants things that don't have to conflict with each other.

That's what I'm saying.

You say it would be easier to redefine it, but you're just thinking of the act of passing an amendment. I don't think you're considering the court battles that have been going on and will continue to go on.

Christians DO NOT want gay couples to be 'married.' Until one of two things happens, nothing will change:

1. The amount of people FOR gay marriage exceeds the Christian vote
2. We choose something else to call 'marriage' and apply it to everyone

If only it were that simple. :]

You don't have to teach your daughter anything. Stopping gay people from getting married in some states isn't going to stop them smooching, having sex or getting married in states where it's allowed.

Do you really want to keep going down this path?

Picture 150 years ago, your same words for some other similar cause "I still agree with Alabama for not allowing those negros to have a full vote. I don't want to have to teach my daughter that it's ok for a slave to have the same rights as white people."

How about 100 years ago: "I agree with Californians for not allowing those women to have the same rights as men. I don't want to have to teach my son that it's ok for his sister to have the same rights."

Do you see where this starts sounding crazy? It didn't sound crazy then.

I don't think you get it. None of this stops people from having relationships and anything of that sort. It just doesn't allow them to get married. And also, it's part of life.

Gay people don't choose to be gay and if you think they do, you're ridiculous. They choose to be gay like women choose to be women and black people choose to be black.

 

When we stop letting religion define our morals we'll start to evolve as a species.

Sure there's nothing wrong with keeping a lot of the morals we have held onto that help keep our society from descending into chaos. But just because any particular religion attaches itself to a particular set of morals doesn't mean we have to allow that religion to dictate ALL of our morals.

The gay marriage thing is a prime example of religion trying to interefere with people's happiness.

Be honest with yourself. There is nothing that gays can do publicly that will offend you that straight people don't already do publicly. Sure there's the whole "I don't want to see 2 men kissing" thing. But where does it stop? There are people who don't want to see a black and white couple kissing either....

I know this is all wishful thinking on my part, but the sooner we can become a species that doesn't rely on being threatened with eternal damnation to adhere to common sense morals the better.

 

I know it! And pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles either. They were born that way.

 

Classic. Astounding to me when this comparison is drawn. I guess I'd like to believe that what two consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their room, so long as it harms no one, isn't any of my business; each to their own. To equate this with a depraved crime against children is beyond me.

On the subject of attempts to make an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, didn't we already experiment with all this "temperance" and constitution stuff? How'd that work out?

 

You make a good point. We shouldn't need the fear of hell to keep from killing each other.

Right.

And serial killers don't choose to be serial killers and ant eaters don't choose to be ant eaters. What's your point? I don't think we're headed toward the same conclusion.

 

I think the world will become a better place when we're more concerned about our lives now, than lives in some presumed afterlife.

Who is more selfless; can it be any more moral than to follow the dictum of many great teachers - "Love one another" - when you do so not out of hope for some achieved reward in an afterlife, but because it is the right way to conduct one's life, here and now?

 

I'm sure the religious would ask "where did you get that dictum?" And one might say "from religion." To which that religious person might say "exactly." To which you would say, "take your pick"-

http://christophersmark.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/goldenrule.jpg

So, more than anything else, I think I'm validating your point. The golden rule seems to have been derived clearly from man.

 

Yep, it's how I feel as well, Scott. I take my lead from Voltaire:

 

You have to understand, man is a tool maker and a tool user. Man is weak, but with his tools he is strong. So man created the greatest tool of them all. God.

Well, maybe not, but sounds good.

 

Interesting way of putting it, Lightless.

 

You gay lovers are enough to make me puke.

Sounds like you are trying to justify homosexuality by asserting that "they were born that way".

Using this logic, shouldn't we all be just a little more sympathetic for the poor pedophiles? Darn it, they just can't help themselves. They were born that way.

And, no, I don't think we are headed toward the same conclusion.

What kind of a wacko statement is that? Not even close. Evolution is based on religion? That is quite possible the most clueless statement that you have ever posted. George, I know that you are smarter than that. I don't think you meant to say that.

Remember when the gay mantra was "it's no ones business what we do in the privacy of our own bedroom"? Society yielded, but now that's not enough. Now the National Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered task force is distributing pledge cards to kindergardners asking them to sign a pledge to never say bad things about the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered. Waaaay out of line. Now they want to redefine "family" and fill the elementary school libraries with books like "My Two Dads".

If they "need" to be homosexual in their own bedroom, fine. They can rot in hell for all I care, but when they bring it out and try to twist sociery, I have to say no.

Except be offensive and disgusting.

 

LOL - well, need some help with that?

I don't "love" gays, nor do I hate "them." I tend to see individuals, and believe that so long as individuals don't hurt others, it's none of my business what they do with their private choices.

I'm not sure what part of "and it harm none, do what you will" you're finding too difficult, Jazz. Pedophiles hurt children. Homosexuals are not criminals. It's your conflating the two that is the problem, and nothing else.

I wasn't aware of this until now - apparently this one instance, a San Francisco area kindergarten teacher. I can assure you, I stand with in you in forceful disagreement with something like this being disseminated to kindergartners, anywhere. Not all things collapse to one issue - one by one.

He didn't - I think you were reading too fast, Jazz. He said, in a word, when religion stops, man will evolve. So social progress, if I've read him right, based on an absence of religion, not its opposite.