How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

I'm not sure what you mean by "declare themselves as representatives in our government" but at first reading it looks like you have an issue with basic freedom of speech when it is afforded religious organizations. Why would it be illegal? Are you asserting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is guilty of illegal activities in connection with this? Can you provide any sort of proof?

 

Seriously you're making my brain bleed!

 

If a church our group of churches raise a large sum of money, and then use that money to buy a judge to reverse a decision that was made by popular vote, it is illegal. What would be the point of voting if organizations could pay a judge to ignore the voting results?

If they pay actual political representatives to vote the way the church wants them to vote and NOT how the people who voted the representative into office tells them to vote, it is illegal. What is the point of voting for anyone for Representative, if they're just going to ignore the wishes of the people who voted them in and vote how the highest bidder asks them to?

 

Do you understand this now?

 

Churches can use the money they receive through donation and tithe to make placards and bagged lunches for their congregation to stand near a voting station and shout about how sinful homosexuality is. THAT is FREE SPEECH. Buying judges and politicians is not covered by freedom of speech.

 

Here is a link talking about it. Read entirely. They mention who donated the money to push the issue to be reconsidered AFTER IT HAD ALREADY PASSED BY POPULAR VOTE the previous May.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/08/same.sex.protests/index.html

uhmmmm - coming from a decidedly non-religious point of view I'd like to voice my opinion here.

 

I (personally) don't believe that gay marriage negatively affects traditional marriage

 

HOWEVER

 

I don't want them to have that word. I want them to have the ability to have legally binding civil unions with ALL of the rights and responsibilities therein. I want the word marriage to remain meaning what it has always meant - a binding union between heterosexual people (preferably one of each).

 

I honestly don't think my opinion is fair at all. But it is what I want.

 

Which "always" do you practice?

 

Traditional marriage was the practice of a man purchasing a woman for breeding. You can keep to that policy if you like. No amount of gays being married can prevent you or your family from selling you to someone.

Marriage changed from that to women no longer being property. Women now have a say in who they marry. You can still do that too whether gays also get married or not.

Go back and read the thread title. We are discussing gay marriage and the gay community being denied rights.

 

No, you made a claim about an alleged translation error to bolster an otherwise fairly reasonable viewpoint, and I merely pointed out that the translation is reasonable.

Seriously you're making my brain bleed!

 

If a church our group of churches raise a large sum of money, and then use that money to buy a judge to reverse a decision that was made by popular vote, it is illegal. What would be the point of voting if organizations could pay a judge to ignore the voting results?

 

My recollection is that the popular vote was to ban gay marriage, a judge overruled that and Prop 8 was to reverse the judge via a constitutional amendment, again by popular vote. Which side are you arguing?

 

It looked like you were saying a judge was bought by LDS, but he was ruling FOR gay marriage ...

 

Maybe I really am making your brain bleed?

It's all a slippery slope my dear. Don't you know that if we allow gays to marry soon brother will be marrying sister, father will be marrying daughter, man will be marrying goat, and the world will devolve into a great hedonistic orgy? It's a process that began when Elvis first girated his hips on stage and will end with us all consumed in an Apocalyptic bonfire. Somebody's got to stand up for common decency, Goddammit.

'Gee Honey, I love being married to you, but the fact that two men also got married really devalues our marriage doesn't it? And I am finding the concepts of mail order brides, childless couples and non-religious marriages are also really negatively impacting on our blesssed union. Waaa, and indeed, waaaa.'

 

:lmao:

It seems to me that the vast majority of 'special' consideration a marriage license (wow, what a flashing neon warning sign THAT term is) confers were aimed squarely at the old notion of a couple doing their best to fill up their farmhouse with cheap labor (children via procreation) and that time is well past.

 

Why not just dismantle the whole thing and invent something that's appropriate for the modern age where American couples are much less inclined to exercise their fecundity?

 

The idea of 6+ offspring who share a father and mother in common is pretty out of date nowadays isn't it?

Which "always" do you practice?

 

Traditional marriage was the practice of a man purchasing a woman for breeding. You can keep to that policy if you like. No amount of gays being married can prevent you or your family from selling you to someone.

Marriage changed from that to women no longer being property. Women now have a say in who they marry. You can still do that too whether gays also get married or not.

My oh my, I had no idea that my personal preference regarding use of the word "marriage" would bring such a ridiculous response.

 

Why is the word "marriage" so important to gay people? If what they want is the human rights and the responsibilities, all the legalities that marriage conveys, why not simply ask/demand that? It doesn't feel to me that is really the goal. What is it that requires the word "married?". It is obviously a sore point for a large number of people, many of whom are like me. I've always wanted committed gay couples to have all rights accorded married people under law. I don't want them to use the same word. -

 

And the "always" I'm talking about is the "always" that the union has been between heterosexual people, as I made perfectly obvious in my first post.

Why is the word "marriage" so important to gay people?

 

Why is it so important to you?

Why is it so important to you?

 

As I said in my 1st post, I can't honestly say that I think it's fair, but there is a lot of history and meaning bound up in words. When I hear husband, I think man. Wife - woman, married, man + woman. Those pictures and idioms come from thousands of years of use. I'm not someone who tends to change meanings for my convenience, and I don't like it.

 

The gay friends I have are not interested in marrying, though some have been in very long term relationships. As a result I've never received an answer to my question. Why marriage? I'd like to understand what makes having that particular word refer to their relationship important. Why isn't the focus simply on the rights and instead on the word?

I guess when one asks "why" to something that really doesn't affect anyone, it begs the responding question "why not?"

 

A gay couple across the continent getting "married" isn't going to change YOUR idea of what the word means. Life is too short for people to get so concerned about something so irrelevant.

Doesn't affect anyone???? If it didn't affect anyone there would be no discussion at all. But I've answered the why not (for me) a couple of times now, and have never gotten the answer to why.

 

And I beg to differ... if the meaning of the word is changed anywhere, then it is changed, whether across the continent or in my backyard. That was part of my point, language is not meant for one person - it is our method of communication, and far more important than you imply.

 

For you it is irrelevant, that obviously isn't the case for a large number of people or else this thread would never have been posted in the first place - nor would there be the amount of discussion currently happening. And, of course, one could say the same thing to people who are demanding gays can marry - "life is too short for people to get so concerned about something so irrelevant." - but when it's something important to you, it's not irrelevant. I'm still waiting to find out WHY it's important.....???

I guess, to some people, it's important because they MUST stick their noses into others' business for some reason.

 

So a gay couple gets married a thousand miles away from you. THEY call it marriage in their home, to their friends and family, and to whomever they choose. No one can tell them they can't, and guess what? It's NOT going to affect ANYONE. It's also NOT going to change the meaning of the word IN YOUR MIND. Unless someone is so easily led by the thoughts of another...

 

uhmmm - Donna - possibly you're not getting what I'm talking about. I'm talking about legal gay marriage - as opposed to having those same legal rights and responsibilities by a civil union. And I do not understand why the word "marriage" is important to them as opposed to "bond" or "pair" or something else. When the word "marriage" so obviously DOES mean a great deal to a number of other people, for a variety of reasons.

 

And guess what... it DOES affect other people. Though it apparently doesn't affect you, it does affect people. That's what words do. That's why there is now a dialogue, except when someone (like me) asks a simple question, instead of answering the question I get put down and insulted.

 

I'm not talking about a gay couple referring to themselves as married, I'm talking about a legal marriage, which is what this thread is about.

As I said in my 1st post, I can't honestly say that I think it's fair, but there is a lot of history and meaning bound up in words. When I hear husband, I think man. Wife - woman, married, man + woman. Those pictures and idioms come from thousands of years of use. I'm not someone who tends to change meanings for my convenience, and I don't like it.

 

That is your meaning of the word marriage.

 

You are certainly entitled to it.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that word may hold just as much meaning for someone else.

And that person may in fact be a homosexual person.

 

Their mental and emotional take on that word may be slightly different but mean just as much to them.

 

Just as your definition of that word marriage is different from mine and I am heterosexual.

 

To be honest I can't understand how your interpretation of the word is more important than someone else's.

 

Important to you of course. And you can hold that belief and attach importance to it all day long.

 

But shouldn't someone else have the same right to hold their view as important too?

 

And allowing them their own interpretation of the word doesn't really change your interpretation of the word, does it?

 

If it does I must say if you do your own research of the word you may be quite shaken. Elsewhere in the world "marriage" has a lot of different connotations and your definition is not the same as a lot of them.

 

 

The gay friends I have are not interested in marrying, though some have been in very long term relationships. As a result I've never received an answer to my question. Why marriage? I'd like to understand what makes having that particular word refer to their relationship important. Why isn't the focus simply on the rights and instead on the word?

 

I would guess to get an answer straight from them you'd have to expand your circle of friends.

 

To me, it is completely reasonable that I may hold things important to me and someone else may hold those things important to them as well but for different reasons.

 

And who am I to say how another adult, who contributes to this society and pays taxes, etc. should live their own private life when they are in a relationship with another consensual adult?

 

I would be outraged if someone denied me the ability to have my life constructed as I wish so that the person I love and who loves me can be afforded basic decencies like visitation in ICU if one of us was gravely ill or dying. Or the decision of where I would be laid to rest if something should happen to me.

That person, my spouse, knows me best and my life has been with him.

 

And so my opinion is that two consenting adults should be able to exchange vows and bind themselves together legally, etc. and call it whatever they want to call it.

 

Their use of the word marriage does nothing to what I mean when I hear it or say it or see it in print.

 

It does not take away from my vows to my husband or those he made to me. It doesn't alter them in any way - it has no effect what so ever.

That is your meaning of the word marriage.

Well, no that is the meaning the marriage (or any word that is translated to marriage has been for the entire being of humanity). It has been between heterosexual people. Sometimes more than one, but always it has been heterosexual.

 

If it does I must say if you do your own research of the word you may be quite shaken. Elsewhere in the world "marriage" has a lot of different connotations and your definition is not the same as a lot of them.

????????

 

And who am I to say how another adult, who contributes to this society and pays taxes, etc. should live their own private life when they are in a relationship with another consensual adult?

 

I would be outraged if someone denied me the ability to have my life constructed as I wish so that the person I love and who loves me can be afforded basic decencies like visitation in ICU if one of us was gravely ill or dying. Or the decision of where I would be laid to rest if something should happen to me.

As would I. And if I found myself in a relationship with another woman, I would want her to have all of those rights. And again I say, I have ALWAYS wanted all of those rights for any couple, or any familial group, for that matter.

 

It does not take away from my vows to my husband or those he made to me. It doesn't alter them in any way - it has no effect what so ever.

Of course it doesn't. As I said in my first post on the subject, gay marriage does not in any way affect traditional marriage. This isn't about gay marriage affecting anyone elses marriage. It is, however, about the meaning of words and the pain that use of those words can produce in other people in some circumstances. It just seems to me that the whole issue could be avoided if the situation is what would be focused on instead of the word.

Well, no that is the meaning the marriage (or any word that is translated to marriage has been for the entire being of humanity). It has been between heterosexual people. Sometimes more than one, but always it has been heterosexual.

 

Actually no, it hasn't and isn't.

 

Sometimes the word "marriage" is even used to describe two businesses uniting (among other entirely non-sexual uses).

 

 

????????

 

Since you are confused about the meaning of the word used in other parts of the world perhaps a cursory look into it would be helpful to you.

 

This link is a start:

 

http://www.reference.com/browse/marriage

 

 

 

As would I. And if I found myself in a relationship with another woman, I would want her to have all of those rights. And again I say, I have ALWAYS wanted all of those rights for any couple, or any familial group, for that matter.

 

GREAT!

 

Then what does it matter to you what they call it?

 

Of course it doesn't. As I said in my first post on the subject, gay marriage does not in any way affect traditional marriage. This isn't about gay marriage affecting anyone elses marriage. It is, however, about the meaning of words and the pain that use of those words can produce in other people in some circumstances. It just seems to me that the whole issue could be avoided if the situation is what would be focused on instead of the word.

 

As previously stated above, elsewhere in the world people define marriage differently.

It hasn't effected you or your own interpretation of that word or it's meaning to you.

So what would it matter if other people you didn't know said it in relationship to their "union"?

Extending a crusty legal contract to embrace more victims isn't doing anyone any favors. Marriage as a social institution can be available to anyone, marriage as a legal contract should be abolished for everyone.

As I said in my 1st post, I can't honestly say that I think it's fair, but there is a lot of history and meaning bound up in words. When I hear husband, I think man. Wife - woman, married, man + woman. Those pictures and idioms come from thousands of years of use. I'm not someone who tends to change meanings for my convenience, and I don't like it.

 

The gay friends I have are not interested in marrying, though some have been in very long term relationships. As a result I've never received an answer to my question. Why marriage? I'd like to understand what makes having that particular word refer to their relationship important. Why isn't the focus simply on the rights and instead on the word?

 

Silk, there is a book on the "gay movement" and its related strategies - "After The Ball", which might offer a useful perspective.

Silk, there is a book on the "gay movement" and its related strategies - "After The Ball", which might offer a useful perspective.

 

 

Good suggestion. Will you post the other links as well?

 

Otherwise this is the saddest thing of all.

 

That some will only read so far as to get the minimal information that supports their view but not the entire story or both sides of the argument to form a truly educated opinion.

That is your meaning of the word marriage.

 

You are certainly entitled to it.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that word may hold just as much meaning for someone else.

And that person may in fact be a homosexual person.

 

Their mental and emotional take on that word may be slightly different but mean just as much to them.

 

Just as your definition of that word marriage is different from mine and I am heterosexual.

 

To be honest I can't understand how your interpretation of the word is more important than someone else's.

 

Important to you of course. And you can hold that belief and attach importance to it all day long.

 

But shouldn't someone else have the same right to hold their view as important too?

 

And allowing them their own interpretation of the word doesn't really change your interpretation of the word, does it?

 

If it does I must say if you do your own research of the word you may be quite shaken. Elsewhere in the world "marriage" has a lot of different connotations and your definition is not the same as a lot of them.

 

 

And so my opinion is that two consenting adults should be able to exchange vows and bind themselves together legally, etc. and call it whatever they want to call it.

 

Their use of the word marriage does nothing to what I mean when I hear it or say it or see it in print.

 

It does not take away from my vows to my husband or those he made to me. It doesn't alter them in any way - it has no effect what so ever.

 

Island Girl, interesting thoughts...I hold the opposite view on gay marriage but we share some fundmamental principles. The core of which I have highlighted in your post - i.e freedom of thought and speech, and the right to have and practice one's religious beliefs.

 

Part of the concern for many, certainly in the Church is how the proponents of gay marriage etc have managed and are managing to erode the basic principle of freedom of thought, speech and the right to have and practice one's religious beliefs - particularly when those beliefs are traditional western Christian beliefs that challenge secularism. That gay activists manage to do so based on a number of erroneous and discredited "findings" alarms many, and threatens our confidence to live in a world where we are not subject to Orwellian style big brother control, and chaotic moral relativism.

 

I and many of my friends, who share my religious beliefs absolutely think that gay couples should have the option to benefit from the same rights as heterosexual couples. To deny them that right could be considered playing God.

 

I don't know what your beliefs are, and I know it's terribly unpopular to have religious beliefs today, but if you can allow me the liberty for a moment, and appreciate that, an underlying principle of Christian beliefs is that even God gives us all freedom, and no man should take that away. Then, to deny someone else that freedom becomes totally unacceptable. Hence many who hold Christian beliefs are indeed comfortable for gay couples to enjoy the same freedom to obtain legal rights afforded heterosexuals. However, a key sticking point for many is that labelling those rights as "marriage" is likely to mean that later the Church will be forced, rather than have the choice, to "bless" such unions. To bless those unions in a Christian context, would mean many Church leaders lose the personal freedom and legal right to practice and express their beliefs.

 

Just a thought...

Good suggestion. Will you post the other links as well?

 

Otherwise this is the saddest thing of all.

 

That some will only read so far as to get the minimal information that supports their view but not the entire story or both sides of the argument to form a truly educated opinion.

 

 

Oh apologies, I meant to. There are many sources that give their own view on this book, so anyone is free to check. Here is one page I found that gives some excerpts which might be of interest.

 

http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm

Island Girl, interesting thoughts...I hold the opposite view on gay marriage but we share some fundmamental principles. The core of which I have highlighted in your post - i.e freedom of thought and speech, and the right to have and practice one's religious beliefs.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

Part of the concern for many, certainly in the Church is how the proponents of gay marriage etc have managed and are managing to erode the basic principle of freedom of thought, speech and the right to have and practice one's religious beliefs - particularly when those beliefs are traditional western Christian beliefs that challenge secularism. That gay activists manage to do so based on a number of erroneous and discredited "findings" alarms many, and threatens our confidence to live in a world where we are not subject to Orwellian style big brother control, and chaotic moral relativism.

 

What religious freedoms will be or have been eroded?

 

If one subscribes to a certain religious view then they are not forced to change that or worship in a different way at all.

 

Take abortion for example.

 

It is legal for a person to make that choice for themselves.

 

However, there are certain faiths that state emphatically that they are against it.

 

I and many of my friends, who share my religious beliefs absolutely think that gay couples should have the option to benefit from the same rights as heterosexual couples. To deny them that right could be considered playing God.

 

Right on. {thumbs up}

 

I don't know what your beliefs are, and I know it's terribly unpopular to have religious beliefs today, but if you can allow me the liberty for a moment, and appreciate that, an underlying principle of Christian beliefs is that even God gives us all freedom, and no man should take that away.

 

Exactly.

 

Then, to deny someone else that freedom becomes totally unacceptable. Hence many who hold Christian beliefs are indeed comfortable for gay couples to enjoy the same freedom to obtain legal rights afforded heterosexuals. However, a key sticking point for many is that labelling those rights as "marriage" is likely to mean that later the Church will be forced, rather than have the choice, to "bless" such unions. To bless those unions in a Christian context, would mean many Church leaders lose the personal freedom and legal right to practice and express their beliefs.

 

Where there becomes a conflict is if that same church -- let's say a Catholic Church -- chooses to marry others outside of that faith such as Protestant couples, Lutheran couples, etc. then why the line drawn at homosexual couples? If they marry all others -- then it is all others -- not all others except.

That is the important difference.

 

These church leaders are willing to forget their religious beliefs for some but not others? That doesn't wash.

 

Now if they want to adhere to their own standard of dogma and not marry those outside of their faith, well, then there is no issue at all.

Where there becomes a conflict is if that same church -- let's say a Catholic Church -- chooses to marry others outside of that faith such as Protestant couples, Lutheran couples, etc. then why the line drawn at homosexual couples? If they marry all others -- then it is all others -- not all others except.

 

Now see, that's horsecrap. It's a Church, it should be able to decide to not marry couples if the woman is blonde if that's what they want to do. It's not a public service, it's a privately funded tax exempt organization.

Absolutely correct.

 

 

Where there becomes a conflict is if that same church -- let's say a Catholic Church -- chooses to marry others outside of that faith such as Protestant couples, Lutheran couples, etc. then why the line drawn at homosexual couples? If they marry all others -- then it is all others -- not all others except.

That is the important difference.

 

These church leaders are willing to forget their religious beliefs for some but not others? That doesn't wash.

 

Now if they want to adhere to their own standard of dogma and not marry those outside of their faith, well, then there is no issue at all.

 

Thanks for being so gracious. I just want to point out a few things:

 

All the categories you mention here are not different faiths. They are different denominations of the same faith. Within Christianity which arose partly because the fundamental principle that one has the freedom to choose how to practice one's beliefs, meant these denominations came about.

 

Other drivers for denominations are cultural, so you can have a situation where the fundamental beliefs are the same, but there may be some differences that arose culturally. A simple example is...many Pentecostals often find Catholic worship boring, while Catholics many find Pentecostal worship a little OTT. So whilst at the core the beliefs are largerly the same, in order not to dissent into "un-Christian" fighting, those denominations were established. That does not mean they are different beliefs, they just practice the same beliefs differently (e.g differnt music , instruments etc.)

 

In any case, the model for marriage in the Bible, which all these denominations are governed by, depicts marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. To bless a union between any other pairing than that would mean, for those Christian leaders who may be forced to perform those cermonies, being denied their freedom to practice their beliefs.

 

Re marrying all others except....that is also not quite correct. Most Churches will not simply bless the union of "all others". For a marriage to take place in a Church certain conditions relating to beliefs and faith need to be "met" regardless of whether the couple holds the core beliefs or not. I would not be able to marry in a Church if for example I had my "bit on the side" and the Church knew about it! It would be against the beliefs to do so.

Now see, that's horsecrap. It's a Church, it should be able to decide to not marry couples if the woman is blonde if that's what they want to do. It's not a public service, it's a privately funded tax exempt organization.

 

 

Really? They are all privately funded, huh?

 

Guess this is news worth reading:

 

http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/Funds_Faith2.htm

 

And just what is a Faith Based Social Services Organization?

 

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/research/federal_grants_report_2-14-06.pdf

 

Here's one President's take on tax payer money going to these "Private" organizations:

 

Individual churches and religious seminaries and other strictly religious organizations have their own lobbyists now in Washington to make sure they get their share of taxpayers' funds. And, as you know, the policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion. Those things in my opinion are quite disturbing," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one.

 

---- President Jimmy Carter

May 19th, 2007 in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

 

 

Those Federal Funding Programs are still in effect.

 

Those are MY tax dollars they are using but I am not a member of their church.

 

How does that work again?

Since you are confused about the meaning of the word used in other parts of the world perhaps a cursory look into it would be helpful to you.

 

Sorry, IG, but I'm not in the slightest confused about the meaning of the word in other parts of the world, nor at other points in history. Possibly you are assuming things I have neither stated nor implied. Or "gasp" possibly you are confused...

 

LaGazelle, thank you for the article.