| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 |
shiv
Twinsanity!!
Member since 5/07 4747 total posts
Name:
Shiv
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
i agree, it should not be up to the public- it's nobody's business but the two people marrying!
|
Posted 11/11/08 9:25 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by smdl
I will be the one here voicing that I do not believe in gay marriages. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament.
BUT I do believe that we should have a 3rd status such a "domestic partner" with the same rights to inheritance, health proxy, health benefits just like a "married" couple would have.
That does not make me "stupid" because I don't believe in it. This is MY belief of what marriage is.
I would also extend the concept of domestic partners to not only gay people but also heterosexual couples who do not want to get married to have such status and benefits.
But, according to US law, marriage ISN'T a religious sacrament. Any (male and female) couple can go down to their Town Hall and sign a piece of paper, and they are married. No religion even remotely near it. Therefore, by US definition, it is not religious. Religions can wrap their own beliefs around it, but it is not religious....
If there was a religion that said "Marriage is ONLY between same-sex couples, and it's written in OUR Holy Book", would that make all heterosexual marriages null and void? Or is it only because the Christian majority say that their way is the right way?
I see no difference between what is going on now, and my hypothetical scenario..... a group of people are forcing their religion on a non-religious contract.
But like you said, the majority STILL does not believe in it. So does that mean the majority does not rule?
Listen, our founding fathers were religious. The "in God we trust" on our $ bills. The basic of our laws are based on religion (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc...). Our modern society is all based on religious beliefs.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 9:27 AM |
| |
|
MsMBV
:P
Member since 5/05 28602 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by neenie
I completely agree.
I think about this alot, and for all of that thinking, i still seriously cannot fathom that, in this day and age, such a blatant disregard for civil liberties is so widely accepted.
I can understand and accept the church not condoning it- their beliefs are deeply rooted and centuries old. I disagree with it, but i understand. BUT, i don't see how the government could forbid it. I don't see what their basis is for this decision, nor do i understand how they can deem this acceptable.
Any argument against gay marriage that i've ever heard has been laughable at best. Especially those that claim that it would make a "mockery" out of marriage. Ummmmm, have you see what heterosexuals, as a whole, have done to the image of marriage? 
I completely agree. And what gets me is that it is legal in Spain - which is one of the most Christian countries by culture. It amazes me how in this country *we* think that we know what is best for *everyone*.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 9:31 AM |
| |
|
BunnyWife
Insert Witty Comment Here
Member since 5/07 8274 total posts
Name:
BunnyWife
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by smdl
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by smdl
I will be the one here voicing that I do not believe in gay marriages. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament.
BUT I do believe that we should have a 3rd status such a "domestic partner" with the same rights to inheritance, health proxy, health benefits just like a "married" couple would have.
That does not make me "stupid" because I don't believe in it. This is MY belief of what marriage is.
I would also extend the concept of domestic partners to not only gay people but also heterosexual couples who do not want to get married to have such status and benefits.
But, according to US law, marriage ISN'T a religious sacrament. Any (male and female) couple can go down to their Town Hall and sign a piece of paper, and they are married. No religion even remotely near it. Therefore, by US definition, it is not religious. Religions can wrap their own beliefs around it, but it is not religious....
If there was a religion that said "Marriage is ONLY between same-sex couples, and it's written in OUR Holy Book", would that make all heterosexual marriages null and void? Or is it only because the Christian majority say that their way is the right way?
I see no difference between what is going on now, and my hypothetical scenario..... a group of people are forcing their religion on a non-religious contract.
But like you said, the majority STILL does not believe in it. So does that mean the majority does not rule?
Listen, our founding fathers were religious. The "in God we trust" on our $ bills. The basic of our laws are based on religion (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc...). Our modern society is all based on religious beliefs.
Not to start an argument but the majority of the founding fathers were not religious. Most them were Deist's who believed basically in a "god" but also in reason. In God We Trust was not actually our national motto until an act of congress in 1956. The motto did appear on some coins beginning in 1864.
ETA: I believe in the separation of church and state. Being against gay marriage because of your own personally religious beliefs is fine but those religious believes should not attempt to impost laws on others. It's the difference between religion and reason.
Message edited 11/11/2008 9:41:17 AM.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 9:37 AM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
I don't get it. It has no impact on society. Why is it something we have to vote on.
I hope I see this change in my lifetime.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 9:38 AM |
| |
|
MissRadiant
Happily Ever After
Member since 9/08 2534 total posts
Name:
N
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
You are so right. Discrimination is the same whether it be due to race, sex and/or sexual preference. I dont see what the big deal is with people denying people that love each other the right to be married. I thought there was a clear separation of church and state in our government so why should same sex marriage be any different. Its sad bc these same people that are so against same sex married are the people that would flip out if someone told them they couldnt marry the person you love. Not to get too religious but if God is the only one who can judge us who are we to decide who someone can or can not be with.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 9:53 AM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by smdl
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by smdl
I will be the one here voicing that I do not believe in gay marriages. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament.
BUT I do believe that we should have a 3rd status such a "domestic partner" with the same rights to inheritance, health proxy, health benefits just like a "married" couple would have.
That does not make me "stupid" because I don't believe in it. This is MY belief of what marriage is.
I would also extend the concept of domestic partners to not only gay people but also heterosexual couples who do not want to get married to have such status and benefits.
But, according to US law, marriage ISN'T a religious sacrament. Any (male and female) couple can go down to their Town Hall and sign a piece of paper, and they are married. No religion even remotely near it. Therefore, by US definition, it is not religious. Religions can wrap their own beliefs around it, but it is not religious....
If there was a religion that said "Marriage is ONLY between same-sex couples, and it's written in OUR Holy Book", would that make all heterosexual marriages null and void? Or is it only because the Christian majority say that their way is the right way?
I see no difference between what is going on now, and my hypothetical scenario..... a group of people are forcing their religion on a non-religious contract.
But like you said, the majority STILL does not believe in it. So does that mean the majority does not rule?
Listen, our founding fathers were religious. The "in God we trust" on our $ bills. The basic of our laws are based on religion (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc...). Our modern society is all based on religious beliefs.
Not to start an argument but the majority of the founding fathers were not religious. Most them were Deist's who believed basically in a "god" but also in reason. In God We Trust was not actually our national motto until an act of congress in 1956. The motto did appear on some coins beginning in 1864.
I was talking in general matters. Not an actual timeline of just our founding fathers.
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
I am also not sure why people do not understand that concept.
So would I be "ok" if we had a 3rd status that group in anyone who wants to be "official" partners, not just gay people? Yes.
They have done a lot of polls. People against "marriage" are NOT against same rights in term of benefits, inheritance, etc..
OK... I am done of the topic.
ETA: I would not vote against gay marriages though.
Message edited 11/11/2008 9:59:47 AM.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 9:53 AM |
| |
|
IrishLasss334
I'll be there soon!
Member since 1/08 6549 total posts
Name:
Patty
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
I agree with you. Gay marriage should be legal.
I understand if churchese/synogogues won't allow it, that is religion. But there should be legal civil marriages allowed. And it shouldn't be a vote.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:07 AM |
| |
|
BabyAvocado
Happy New Year
Member since 5/05 17334 total posts
Name:
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
I have always had issue with a calling a gay marriage a "marriage" for reasons along the lines of what smdl just posted.
However, I do feel that the government really has no right to discriminate in this matter. As far as the government should be concerned, marriage is just a contract between two people, right? So, IMO, they are in clear violation of civil rights if they discriminate solely based on the sexual preference of those people.
The religious implications should be separate. However, where do you draw the line between religion and morality? You know what... it's probably not up to the government to decide in the case of gay marriage.
So, going back to my first statement... I'm starting to come around and let that go of that sentiment. I think I care far more about the government violating civil rights than about what you call a commitment between two people. Besides, as someone else already posted, look what heterosexuals have done to marriage.
On a related note, my family recent went through something that I don't want to go into right now but the issue of homosexuality was involved. My cousin, who recently came out, wrote the following in an E-mail to a bunch of us her attitude iabout the whole thing just struck me and I wanted to share:
I want
you guys to know that kind of ignorance may not always be intentional or
purposeful and those who have lifestyles as xxxxx did and I do are
understanding and forgiving and pay little to no attention to such
discriminations and appreciate more from those such as you guys who love
us for who we are not for who we love
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:13 AM |
| |
|
leighla
Support Cancer Research
Member since 5/05 16353 total posts
Name:
Lauren
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by smdl
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
I am also not sure why people do not understand that concept.
I think the hypocrite label and the issue most people start to get fired up over is that many (maybe not you) but many christians seem to pick and choose what religious sacraments they are for and against depending on which way the wind blows.
Christians (again a sweeping point, not specifically you) say gay marriage is against their religion and are appalled at the notion, but have no problem using birth control, having premarital sex, going through IVF, etc.
How can one thing be "okay" to go against and others be appalling?
It seems to all go to which thing affects them personally the most.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:14 AM |
| |
|
Elbee
Zanzibar
Member since 5/05 10767 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
I just wanted to add that not only is it Religious lobby's that fight this issue ... but it also insurance companies .... all different type of insurance companies (health, life, disability, etc and so on) would be affected by a change in status ....
Insurance companies are one of the BIGGEST lobbyists in this country and they will fight it because THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY ....
I am not siding with them and just really scanned this thread quickly, but I just wanted to point out this is not just a 'religious' argument .... there are other groups out there fighting the change for a number of different reasons - one of them is the insurance industry and the cost of it all if gay marriage is allowed.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:14 AM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by leighla
Posted by smdl
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
I am also not sure why people do not understand that concept.
I think the hypocrite label and the issue most people start to get fired up over is that many (maybe not you) but many christians seem to pick and choose what religious sacraments they are for and against depending on which way the wind blows.
Christians (again a sweeping point, not specifically you) say gay marriage is against their religion and are appalled at the notion, but have no problem using birth control, having premarital sex, going through IVF, etc.
How can one thing be "okay" to go against and others be appalling?
It seems to all go to which thing affects them personally the most.
Yes, I agree and I DID say I was conflicted on the issue.
Don't you ever found yourself conflicted on anything? That you contradict yourself and you can't really explain it.
I never said I was perfect.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:18 AM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by Elbee
I just wanted to add that not only is it Religious lobby's that fight this issue ... but it also insurance companies .... all different type of insurance companies (health, life, disability, etc and so on) would be affected by a change in status ....
Insurance companies are one of the BIGGEST lobbyists in this country and they will fight it because THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY ....
I am not siding with them and just really scanned this thread quickly, but I just wanted to point out this is not just a 'religious' argument .... there are other groups out there fighting the change for a number of different reasons - one of them is the insurance industry and the cost of it all if gay marriage is allowed.
That I absolutely do not understand.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:20 AM |
| |
|
Kidsaplenty
Sister love
Member since 2/06 5971 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by smdl
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
So would I be "ok" if we had a 3rd status that group in anyone who wants to be "official" partners, not just gay people? Yes.
So we're aiming for separate but equal again? I thought that was ruled unconstitutional...
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:21 AM |
| |
|
MissRadiant
Happily Ever After
Member since 9/08 2534 total posts
Name:
N
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by Elbee
I just wanted to add that not only is it Religious lobby's that fight this issue ... but it also insurance companies .... all different type of insurance companies (health, life, disability, etc and so on) would be affected by a change in status ....
Insurance companies are one of the BIGGEST lobbyists in this country and they will fight it because THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY ....
I am not siding with them and just really scanned this thread quickly, but I just wanted to point out this is not just a 'religious' argument .... there are other groups out there fighting the change for a number of different reasons - one of them is the insurance industry and the cost of it all if gay marriage is allowed.
That is ridiculous, once again another issue that just comes down to money.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:22 AM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by greeneyes361708
Posted by smdl
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
So would I be "ok" if we had a 3rd status that group in anyone who wants to be "official" partners, not just gay people? Yes.
So we're aiming for separate but equal again? I thought that was ruled unconstitutional...
Please... I have voiced my opinion. I don't need to be questioned by every poster that will come to this thread.
Why is it that when 1 person does not agree and decide to post so, that everybody must jump on the bandwagon and question?
I have posted numerous times on the topic. I have been more than honest.
I think we can all voice our opinion without being questioned.
Thank you!
ETA: this is EXACTLY why nobody is posting anymore their opinion on those posts. If you want only people to agree with you, then say so in the subject line. I have not been disrepectful to anyone. I have not called people stupid like some people are so quick to write the minute someone does not agree. Do you really think I am the only one on this site who feels this way?
This is getting so annoying people are avoiding those posts altogehter.
Message edited 11/11/2008 10:29:46 AM.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:25 AM |
| |
|
joenick
Us
Member since 6/06 9370 total posts
Name:
Valerie...aka...Do Me A Favor?
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
OK...here's the thing...my brother and his boyfriend (they have been together over 4 years) have the BEST relationship of any couple I know.
I have been married a long time (over 10 years) and so have MANY of my friends.
ANYONE who knows my brother and Jim, ALWAYS say they have the best relationship of all of us! 
They own a BEAUTIFUL house together, they have a deep and loving commitment to each other and their families...it makes me so sad that they cannot have a ceremony legally uniting them together.
It's really not fair.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:30 AM |
| |
|
Diane
Hope is Contagious....catch it
Member since 5/05 30683 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
I completely agree, and feel so sorry for your friends
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:30 AM |
| |
|
MissRadiant
Happily Ever After
Member since 9/08 2534 total posts
Name:
N
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by smdl
ETA: this is EXACTLY why nobody is posting anymore their opinion on those posts. If you want only people to agree with you, then say so in the subject line. I have not been disrepectful to anyone. I have not called people stupid like some people are so quick to write the minute someone does not agree. Do you really think I am the only one on this site who feels this way?
This is getting so annoying people are avoiding those posts altogehter.
As you were typing that message I was thinking how great it was that you were voicing your opinions and being respectful about it. I think we all know that you are not the only one that feels this way but you are the only one typing. I dont think anyone is trying to attack you or question you. All the responses that you have typed I can find myself agreeing bc like you I do belive that they should marry whomever they want but a part of me does agree that the name shouldnt be marriage more like union. The naming is something that I do go back and forth on realizing that the name shouldnt be important as long as the couple is legally joined.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:41 AM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by smdl
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by smdl
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by smdl
I will be the one here voicing that I do not believe in gay marriages. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament.
BUT I do believe that we should have a 3rd status such a "domestic partner" with the same rights to inheritance, health proxy, health benefits just like a "married" couple would have.
That does not make me "stupid" because I don't believe in it. This is MY belief of what marriage is.
I would also extend the concept of domestic partners to not only gay people but also heterosexual couples who do not want to get married to have such status and benefits.
But, according to US law, marriage ISN'T a religious sacrament. Any (male and female) couple can go down to their Town Hall and sign a piece of paper, and they are married. No religion even remotely near it. Therefore, by US definition, it is not religious. Religions can wrap their own beliefs around it, but it is not religious....
If there was a religion that said "Marriage is ONLY between same-sex couples, and it's written in OUR Holy Book", would that make all heterosexual marriages null and void? Or is it only because the Christian majority say that their way is the right way?
I see no difference between what is going on now, and my hypothetical scenario..... a group of people are forcing their religion on a non-religious contract.
But like you said, the majority STILL does not believe in it. So does that mean the majority does not rule?
Listen, our founding fathers were religious. The "in God we trust" on our $ bills. The basic of our laws are based on religion (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc...). Our modern society is all based on religious beliefs.
Not to start an argument but the majority of the founding fathers were not religious. Most them were Deist's who believed basically in a "god" but also in reason. In God We Trust was not actually our national motto until an act of congress in 1956. The motto did appear on some coins beginning in 1864.
I was talking in general matters. Not an actual timeline of just our founding fathers.
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
I am also not sure why people do not understand that concept.
So would I be "ok" if we had a 3rd status that group in anyone who wants to be "official" partners, not just gay people? Yes.
They have done a lot of polls. People against "marriage" are NOT against same rights in term of benefits, inheritance, etc..
OK... I am done of the topic.
ETA: I would not vote against gay marriages though.
I'm not here to flame you - just here to offer MY perspective on the gayy marriage debate. FTR, I am strongly PRO gay marriage.
Like many other words in the English language, "marriage" can mean different things to different people. Under US law, it has NO religious connotation. Marriage is a secular contract and if it weren't, the you couldn't get married before a judge. You'd have to get married before a member of the clergy.
That doesn't take away from what marriage means personally to you or to religious people. To you, marriage is a religious sacrament. To another couple, their marriage is a secular contract. BOTH are viewed as the same under the law. Believing that marriage is a religious sacrament ONLY takes the legal implications of marriage out of the picture.
Marriage means different things to different people -- and will always be that way, whether we let homosexual couples marry or not. I repeat. Marriage will mean different things to different people whether we let homosexuals marry or not. Keeping gays from marrying will not make everyone believe and respect marriage as a religious institution no more than allowing gay marraiges will take away from someone whose marriage IS a religious sacramental union. What my marriage is has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage. My marriage is not threatened and the institution of marriage as I believe it is not threatened by allowing homosexuals to marry. What your marriage is to you and what the marriage is to you will not change if homosexuals can marry. You'll just be using the word differently.
Sometimes I wonder if the bigger debate surrounding "gay marriage" is semantics (use of the word marriage) or practice (legal union between two people with legal effect). When it's purely semantics, I honestly have to ask myself why people are so protective of a WORD. The institution of marriage will not be threatened by gay marriage. What your marriage is to each individual couple will not change if gays are allowed to marry.
There are plenty of things that are wrong and immoral that are not illegal. If you feel homosexual marriages are wrong or immoral, then don't marry someone of the same sex. I don't see why you need to control what other consenting adults do with their lives. I don't see how allowing people of the same sex to marry is so reprehensible that we must outlaw it. It makes no sense.
And if we're truly arguing over the use of the word "marriage" - then I truly believe both sides are so, so, SO missing the point.
ETA -- using the word "you" as a general you. NOT to only mean the person I quoted! (Just wanted to be clear!)
Message edited 11/11/2008 10:51:19 AM.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:43 AM |
| |
|
1stimemom
Love my boys
Member since 2/08 8766 total posts
Name:
Mrs Dee
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
I have a question ~
What happens now to all the couples that did get married when it was legal? Are there marraiges still legal? If so how could it be "FAIR" that some are married and others can't be?
To the OP ~ That really sucks for your friends
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:43 AM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by 1stimemom
I have a question ~
What happens now to all the couples that did get married when it was legal? Are there marraiges still legal? If so how could it be "FAIR" that some are married and others can't be?
To the OP ~ That really sucks for your friends
I believe the law was not retroactive, so they should still technically be married. That said, I'm not sure it's so black and white. There may not be a clear answer on that just yet...
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:44 AM |
| |
|
1stimemom
Love my boys
Member since 2/08 8766 total posts
Name:
Mrs Dee
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by Kara
Posted by smdl
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by smdl
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by smdl
I will be the one here voicing that I do not believe in gay marriages. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament.
BUT I do believe that we should have a 3rd status such a "domestic partner" with the same rights to inheritance, health proxy, health benefits just like a "married" couple would have.
That does not make me "stupid" because I don't believe in it. This is MY belief of what marriage is.
I would also extend the concept of domestic partners to not only gay people but also heterosexual couples who do not want to get married to have such status and benefits.
But, according to US law, marriage ISN'T a religious sacrament. Any (male and female) couple can go down to their Town Hall and sign a piece of paper, and they are married. No religion even remotely near it. Therefore, by US definition, it is not religious. Religions can wrap their own beliefs around it, but it is not religious....
If there was a religion that said "Marriage is ONLY between same-sex couples, and it's written in OUR Holy Book", would that make all heterosexual marriages null and void? Or is it only because the Christian majority say that their way is the right way?
I see no difference between what is going on now, and my hypothetical scenario..... a group of people are forcing their religion on a non-religious contract.
But like you said, the majority STILL does not believe in it. So does that mean the majority does not rule?
Listen, our founding fathers were religious. The "in God we trust" on our $ bills. The basic of our laws are based on religion (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc...). Our modern society is all based on religious beliefs.
Not to start an argument but the majority of the founding fathers were not religious. Most them were Deist's who believed basically in a "god" but also in reason. In God We Trust was not actually our national motto until an act of congress in 1956. The motto did appear on some coins beginning in 1864.
I was talking in general matters. Not an actual timeline of just our founding fathers.
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
I am also not sure why people do not understand that concept.
So would I be "ok" if we had a 3rd status that group in anyone who wants to be "official" partners, not just gay people? Yes.
They have done a lot of polls. People against "marriage" are NOT against same rights in term of benefits, inheritance, etc..
OK... I am done of the topic.
ETA: I would not vote against gay marriages though.
I'm not here to flame you - just here to offer MY perspective on the gayy marriage debate. FTR, I am strongly PRO gay marriage.
Like many other words in the English language, "marriage" can mean different things to different people. Under US law, it has NO religious connotation. Marriage is a secular contract and if it weren't, the you couldn't get married before a judge. You'd have to get married before a member of the clergy.
That doesn't take away from what marriage means personally to you or to religious people. To you, marriage is a religious sacrament. To another couple, their marriage is a secular contract. BOTH are viewed as the same under the law. Believing that marriage is a religious sacrament ONLY takes the legal implications of marriage out of the picture.
Marriage means different things to different people -- and will always be that way, whether we let homosexual couples marry or not. I repeat. Marriage will mean different things to different people whether we let homosexuals marry or not. Keeping gays from marrying will not make everyone believe and respect marriage as a religious institution no more than allowing gay marraiges will take away from someone whose marriage IS a religious sacramental union. What my marriage is has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage. My marriage is not threatened and the institution of marriage as I believe it is not threatened by allowing homosexuals to marry. What your marriage is to you and what the marriage is to you will not change if homosexuals can marry. You'll just be using the word differently.
Sometimes I wonder if the bigger debate surrounding "gay marriage" is semantics (use of the word marriage) or practice (legal union between two people with legal effect). When it's purely semantics, I honestly have to ask myself why people are so protective of a WORD. The institution of marriage will not be threatened by gay marriage. What your marriage is to each individual couple will not change if gays are allowed to marry.
There are plenty of things that are wrong and immoral that are not illegal. If you feel homosexual marriages are wrong or immoral, then don't marry someone of the same sex. I don't see why you need to control what other consenting adults do with their lives. I don't see how allowing people of the same sex to marry is so reprehensible that we must outlaw it. It makes no sense.
And if we're truly arguing over the use of the word "marriage" - then I truly believe both sides are so, so, SO missing the point.
Kara, as usual, a very intelligent, objective and well written post!
|
| Posted 11/11/08 10:45 AM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
Posted by Kara
Posted by smdl
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by smdl
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by smdl
I will be the one here voicing that I do not believe in gay marriages. I believe marriage is a religious sacrament.
BUT I do believe that we should have a 3rd status such a "domestic partner" with the same rights to inheritance, health proxy, health benefits just like a "married" couple would have.
That does not make me "stupid" because I don't believe in it. This is MY belief of what marriage is.
I would also extend the concept of domestic partners to not only gay people but also heterosexual couples who do not want to get married to have such status and benefits.
But, according to US law, marriage ISN'T a religious sacrament. Any (male and female) couple can go down to their Town Hall and sign a piece of paper, and they are married. No religion even remotely near it. Therefore, by US definition, it is not religious. Religions can wrap their own beliefs around it, but it is not religious....
If there was a religion that said "Marriage is ONLY between same-sex couples, and it's written in OUR Holy Book", would that make all heterosexual marriages null and void? Or is it only because the Christian majority say that their way is the right way?
I see no difference between what is going on now, and my hypothetical scenario..... a group of people are forcing their religion on a non-religious contract.
But like you said, the majority STILL does not believe in it. So does that mean the majority does not rule?
Listen, our founding fathers were religious. The "in God we trust" on our $ bills. The basic of our laws are based on religion (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc...). Our modern society is all based on religious beliefs.
Not to start an argument but the majority of the founding fathers were not religious. Most them were Deist's who believed basically in a "god" but also in reason. In God We Trust was not actually our national motto until an act of congress in 1956. The motto did appear on some coins beginning in 1864.
I was talking in general matters. Not an actual timeline of just our founding fathers.
I will admit (as I have said in previous posts... this is not a new topic and I have been flamed before for being honest with what I believe) that I am very conflicted with the concept. I really believe that the word "marriage" is a religious sacrament and that because of that you cannot call a gay marriage "marriage". I honestly think if people were using a different word that a lot more people would be on board with it. Hypocrite? Maybe. Just like we use words now that are "politically correct" because we can no longer used the old one.
I am for equal rights for gay people. Absolutely. Again, marriage is seen by a lot of people as being a religious sacrament and based on that it's contradictary to what the religion (Christianity) stands on homosexuality.
I am also not sure why people do not understand that concept.
So would I be "ok" if we had a 3rd status that group in anyone who wants to be "official" partners, not just gay people? Yes.
They have done a lot of polls. People against "marriage" are NOT against same rights in term of benefits, inheritance, etc..
OK... I am done of the topic.
ETA: I would not vote against gay marriages though.
I'm not here to flame you - just here to offer MY perspective on the gayy marriage debate. FTR, I am strongly PRO gay marriage.
Like many other words in the English language, "marriage" can mean different things to different people. Under US law, it has NO religious connotation. Marriage is a secular contract and if it weren't, the you couldn't get married before a judge. You'd have to get married before a member of the clergy.
That doesn't take away from what marriage means personally to you or to religious people. To you, marriage is a religious sacrament. To another couple, their marriage is a secular contract. BOTH are viewed as the same under the law. Believing that marriage is a religious sacrament ONLY takes the legal implications of marriage out of the picture.
Marriage means different things to different people -- and will always be that way, whether we let homosexual couples marry or not. I repeat. Marriage will mean different things to different people whether we let homosexuals marry or not. Keeping gays from marrying will not make everyone believe and respect marriage as a religious institution no more than allowing gay marraiges will take away from someone whose marriage IS a religious sacramental union. What my marriage is has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage. My marriage is not threatened and the institution of marriage as I believe it is not threatened by allowing homosexuals to marry. What your marriage is to you and what the marriage is to you will not change if homosexuals can marry. You'll just be using the word differently.
Sometimes I wonder if the bigger debate surrounding "gay marriage" is semantics (use of the word marriage) or practice (legal union between two people with legal effect). When it's purely semantics, I honestly have to ask myself why people are so protective of a WORD. The institution of marriage will not be threatened by gay marriage. What your marriage is to each individual couple will not change if gays are allowed to marry.
There are plenty of things that are wrong and immoral that are not illegal. If you feel homosexual marriages are wrong or immoral, then don't marry someone of the same sex. I don't see why you need to control what other consenting adults do with their lives. I don't see how allowing people of the same sex to marry is so reprehensible that we must outlaw it. It makes no sense.
And if we're truly arguing over the use of the word "marriage" - then I truly believe both sides are so, so, SO missing the point.
ETA -- using the word "you" as a general you. NOT to only mean the person I quoted! (Just wanted to be clear!)
I understand what you are saying and I do agree somehow.
I did say I was "conflicted". I think it's come from the core of what I think "marriage" is. And yes, I think it's the "word" that is more of an issue. But like I said, we now used new words also because they are politically correct.
In essence, it's is "just" a word indeed but it means a lot more than that to some people. It questions the core belief of 1 man and 1 woman. Which is what I always believed was a marriage. I grew up in such environment. Gay marriage was not even a thought. I grew up where gay people were "different" if not considered "perverts". My dad made fun of the rare gay people we knew. i went to Catholic school. And trust me, Catholic schools in Europe are VERY strict. I am being very candid and honest about this. I have never met so many gay people until I moved to the US. I have worked with gay people. I have talked to gay people and I am learning. I have had to open my mind to a world I was not familiar with. Sometimes fear makes you react a certain way but yet, you can't let go just yet of that belief of the marriage. It takes time to understand. If easy to say "be with your time", "you have to let go", "you have to be open minded". It's not easy to change what you believed most of your life.
Do I think most gay people will have the right to marry in my lifetime? Yes.
And maybe I will be OK with the whole concept eventually. Not just yet.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 11:06 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: I need to vent about something that has me in tears.
I don't mean to be offensive or be the antagonist, but I am now questioning the use of the word "Marriage" for my own union....
My wedding did not include any religious ceremony. Does not mean I am not "married"? I know my wedding wouldn't be recognized by any Church but I still have considered myself in a "marriage"as does my family since it is recognized by the state. Is this wrong? Have we actually in a "Domestic union" all these years without knowing it?
BTW I am a woman "married" to a man.
|
| Posted 11/11/08 11:06 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 |
