How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[sally4sara]

I expect it unfortunately will take many years and there will be many many bitter fights before this becomes law. The religious right will be kicking and screaming and then some all the way through.

 

Yes, and buying political sway the whole time rather than "giving it to god".

[boxing123]

Ok, so no gender roles?

 

Once gays start to marry which one will be considered the female or male? Obviously neither.

 

So to keep things fair for heteros I fully expect about 50% of men to keep the children from now on, and 50 % of women to pay child support. No more gender roles. No more laws favoring women simply because they gave birth.

 

As you can see, gay marriage would have far fewer entanglements than hetero marriage.Nobody will be giving birth. Gays will not have children.(Unless they are not really gay and were able to get it up enough to impregnate a female) This means it would be far easier to obtain a divorce. Which means to keep things fair, it will be far easier for heteros to obtain a divorce as well. The divorce process will be streamlined even more.

 

Since we will have no gender roles, I expect all divorce proceedings will be gender neutral. Thew kids will not go to the home of the mother simply because she has a vagina. Perhaps the courts should not even be allowed to know who is male or female as this might produce a biased result based on gender.

[Tired03]

What a ridiculous argument. But I will address this:

 

Since we will have no gender roles, I expect all divorce proceedings will be gender neutral. Thew kids will not go to the home of the mother simply because she has a vagina. Perhaps the courts should not even be allowed to know who is male or female as this might produce a biased result based on gender.

 

Typically that's not why the ruling occurs - in fact, courts have been pressured to give custody to fathers because of the outcry.

 

The rule is, whatever causes the *least* amount of change for the children is the partner who gets to keep the kids in a custody battle. Regardless of gender.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Protect the rights of people who persecute due to religious beliefs......only if I HAVE to.

Can you imagine your kid telling you you had to buy them a car inspite of a report card full of Ds because The Great Rock Lizard who dwelleth in the highest mount commanded it so and all those that oppose him get damned to the ovens of Gloried Betty Crocker....praise Garnockt the lizard-son?

That is how it sounds to people who don't believe what you believe. Go to your church, read your bible and tell your kids all the impossible things you want to get them to live by your rules under your roof, but PLEASE, stop asking everyone else to hold your faith up for you. It is NOT persecusion when people want to also live free but different than you.

 

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe, I'm just asking for the right to believe it.

 

It's foolish to assume religion is all about "do this or go to hell". It shows you don't understand it at all.

 

You can live free all you want... but when you start trying to dictate what I can believe and what I can't, that makes you wrong. That is what this whole debate is over.

 

You and others hate me for what I believe and you want to have the right to force me to do what you want.

 

We just had the same debate in our state over the day after pill. Your side wanted to force pharmacists to provide it against their religious beliefs. These issues are not separate. It's a constant and concerted effort to create religious intolerance and persecution. The "freedom of choice act" would force all doctors to perform abortions, even though it's against their oath. Same deal.

 

This is a slippery slope, and you should be wary as you tread it. I know you don't care about my rights because you hate what I believe, but one day it might be about your job, and your rights.

[Untouchable_Fire]

You mean people that are not religious can't marry? I didn't know that.

Two same sex people that are either non religious or from religions that support same sex marriage marry. That oppresses religious freedoms? I learn new stuff every day.

What else can I learn today? Maybe something like 2+2=5.

 

Right now it exists as a legal institution, because it existed as a religious institution. Men and women have formed unions since the beginning of time, but they were not called marriages.

 

Are you trying to say that religion plays no role in marriage?

[hotgurl]

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe, I'm just asking for the right to believe it.

 

It's foolish to assume religion is all about "do this or go to hell". It shows you don't understand it at all.

 

You can live free all you want... but when you start trying to dictate what I can believe and what I can't, that makes you wrong. That is what this whole debate is over.

 

You and others hate me for what I believe and you want to have the right to force me to do what you want.

 

We just had the same debate in our state over the day after pill. Your side wanted to force pharmacists to provide it against their religious beliefs. These issues are not separate. It's a constant and concerted effort to create religious intolerance and persecution. The "freedom of choice act" would force all doctors to perform abortions, even though it's against their oath. Same deal.

 

This is a slippery slope, and you should be wary as you tread it. I know you don't care about my rights because you hate what I believe, but one day it might be about your job, and your rights.

 

If you feel so strongly against providing the pill don't take a job where you providing it will be part of your job. You can work at a catholic hospital or pharamacy. Also your religion in belief in not providing BC shouldn't prevent me from getting it.

 

I believe in other place where this has come up they had another pharmasist fill the presciption.

 

In the same way that if gay marriage is legal it doesn't force you or your church to perform them.

 

the government can not create laws that discrimnate against people.

[hotgurl]

Right now it exists as a legal institution, because it existed as a religious institution. Men and women have formed unions since the beginning of time, but they were not called marriages.

 

Are you trying to say that religion plays no role in marriage?

 

again marriage is made up of three components.

 

1. the legal contract

 

2. the day to day experience

 

3. the religious/spiritual aspect.

[Untouchable_Fire]

If you feel so strongly against providing the pill don't take a job where you providing it will be part of your job. You can work at a catholic hospital or pharamacy. Also your religion in belief in not providing BC shouldn't prevent me from getting it.

I believe in other place where this has come up they had another pharmasist fill the presciption.

In the same way that if gay marriage is legal it doesn't force you or your church to perform them.

the government can not create laws that discrimnate against people.

 

If the government says that I have to provide a pill that I object to on a moral level... that is discrimination.

 

The fact is that in nearly every place this issue has been raised it's been proven that these pills are readily available, and very easy to get. So, why did people try to create a law to fix something that is not a problem?

 

If the government legalizes gay marriage it WILL force my church to perform them. Think about it... the law wont distinguish one type of union from another, so to marry one couple, and turn another away will be subject to discrimination suits.

 

again marriage is made up of three components.

1. the legal contract

2. the day to day experience

3. the religious/spiritual aspect.

 

And... it's Ok for the government to dictate what that spiritual aspect means?

[Island Girl]

If the government legalizes gay marriage it WILL force my church to perform them. Think about it... the law wont distinguish one type of union from another, so to marry one couple, and turn another away will be subject to discrimination suits.

 

This is absolutely ludicrous.

 

Right now if a Rabbi doesn't want to perform a marriage ceremony for two Catholics -- He doesn't have to.

 

But they can't sue him because of it. And no one else would be able to either.

 

You have been called out about this before because you claimed it already happened to "your church in Hawaii" but I have found no evidential support.

Nor did you provide any when asked.

 

So it seems it is just a smoke screen to try and establish a "reason" for your argument to hold water.

[a4a]

Me having a vagina married to a person with a penis.

 

I do not consider my marriage any way shape or form a part of any religion or god. I will never have kids..... don't want them. So is my marriage real? Does the word MARRIAGE truly apply to me?

 

 

Now what about the gay people that are believers in a god..... they believe that god created them, have faith, are good people, again god created them - they cannot have their love and "marriage/union" in a church under the watchful eye of the god they believe in?

 

And there are many gay friendly churches that would happily marry gay people if it was legal. I doubt the many gays will be beating the doors down of anti gay churches to be married if legal across the US.

 

One thing anti gay churches should worry about is the competition of gay friendly religious organizations. Gay dudes throw some lavish weddings!

[Island Girl]

And... it's Ok for the government to dictate what that spiritual aspect means?

 

EXACTLY.

 

It's NOT.

 

And because the reasons against gay marriage are founded in religion they have no place in the decision.

 

Any church can make their own policy.

 

Look at the Catholic church and abortion.

 

They have a VERY clear stance against it.

 

But should that be the blanket policy for EVERYONE.

 

No.

 

So go to church and hate against anyone you want to.

Hate against any policy or law you want to.

Discriminate as much as you want to.

Or do all of that from your arm chair at home. Or in a local park.

Wherever really.

 

No one is saying you can't believe whatever you want and talk about it to whomever will listen.

 

But you should not be able to dictate the beliefs of others. They are entitled to do as they will and believe as they want as long as they are not harming others in the process.

 

Laws should be inclusive not exclusive.

Laws of freedom should apply to everyone.

And if they are lacking in equality they need to be amended.

[Untouchable_Fire]

This is absolutely ludicrous.

Right now if a Rabbi doesn't want to perform a marriage ceremony for two Catholics -- He doesn't have to.

But they can't sue him because of it. And no one else would be able to either.

You have been called out about this before because you claimed it already happened to "your church in Hawaii" but I have found no evidential support.

Nor did you provide any when asked.

So it seems it is just a smoke screen to try and establish a "reason" for your argument to hold water.

You already admitted that this happened in NJ. The only thing that stopped the suit is the fact that NJ has civil unions not marriage!

 

And yes we did get sued in Hawaii, just because the AP didn't pick it up doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like the AP is some all knowing all seeing entity. It's just a bunch of idiots that try to sell you whatever they think you want to hear.

 

Me having a vagina married to a person with a penis.

I do not consider my marriage any way shape or form a part of any religion or god. I will never have kids..... don't want them. So is my marriage real? Does the word MARRIAGE truly apply to me?

Now what about the gay people that are believers in a god..... they believe that god created them, have faith, are good people, again god created them - they cannot have their love and "marriage/union" in a church under the watchful eye of the god they believe in?

And there are many gay friendly churches that would happily marry gay people if it was legal. I doubt the many gays will be beating the doors down of anti gay churches to be married if legal across the US.

One thing anti gay churches should worry about is the competition of gay friendly religious organizations. Gay dudes throw some lavish weddings!

 

Do you feel like your married? From your earlier descriptions I'm not sure it qualifies as anything but a legal contract. You should tell your husband that. I remember a lot of your posts about him... I would love to see a thread on whatever passive aggressive response he comes up with.

 

Hey, I'm not saying I don't like the idea of gay people having weddings. I want gay people to have something just like marriage with all the rights and protections.

 

I just don't want it to be called marriage, because that would take away my rights. I say this to you so that you know where I stand on this and what we are arguing about.

 

If we want to argue about the meaning of the word, then you have to try and say that marriage means, 1 person + 1 person, instead of 1 man + 1 woman. In fact the former is best described as a union... of which a marriage is a type. Therefore 1 man + 1 man, should have a different word, as should 1 woman + 1 woman.

 

If we define our terms in a legal sense then we protect the rights of everybody.

[Island Girl]

This is absolutely ludicrous.

 

Right now if a Rabbi doesn't want to perform a marriage ceremony for two Catholics -- He doesn't have to.

 

But they can't sue him because of it. And no one else would be able to either.

 

You have been called out about this before because you claimed it already happened to "your church in Hawaii" but I have found no evidential support.

Nor did you provide any when asked.

 

So it seems it is just a smoke screen to try and establish a "reason" for your argument to hold water.

 

You already admitted that this happened in NJ. The only thing that stopped the suit is the fact that NJ has civil unions not marriage!

 

No.

 

I NEVER DID.

 

I would challenge you to find the post where I said anything of the sort.

[Island Girl]

And yes we did get sued in Hawaii, just because the AP didn't pick it up doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like the AP is some all knowing all seeing entity. It's just a bunch of idiots that try to sell you whatever they think you want to hear.

 

So a church gets sued and, according to you, loses millions and NO NEWS ORGANIZATION publishes anything about it?

 

Not even local news organizations or papers IN Hawaii.

 

That fact certainly is suspect.

 

Thankfully I have family there. And they are a close little community. Stuff like this gets discussed ad nauseum.

 

What church was it?

 

That'll certainly help me get the facts.

[a4a]

 

 

 

 

Do you feel like your married? From your earlier descriptions I'm not sure it qualifies as anything but a legal contract. You should tell your husband that. I remember a lot of your posts about him... I would love to see a thread on whatever passive aggressive response he comes up with.

 

To me marriage means you have a legal binding contract. End of story.

 

I just don't want it to be called marriage, because that would take away my rights. I say this to you so that you know where I stand on this and what we are arguing about.

 

How would calling a gay marriage a marriage dissolve your rights? The right to what? What rights does this threaten? I clearly do not understand. If anything my own M probably is more anti holy M than a gay M. Does mine take away your rights in some form?

 

 

If we want to argue about the meaning of the word, then you have to try and say that marriage means, 1 person + 1 person, instead of 1 man + 1 woman. In fact the former is best described as a union... of which a marriage is a type. Therefore 1 man + 1 man, should have a different word, as should 1 woman + 1 woman.

 

Again how does this take away your rights....... what rights does this word "marriage" have such a huge effect on?

 

I think the homophobes are grasping at straws. I could be wrong but I just don't see it.

 

If we define our terms in a legal sense then we protect the rights of everybody.

 

So this is a fight over a word or the fact that gay people should be able to be unified with the exact same rights as hetros?

[sally4sara]

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe, I'm just asking for the right to believe it.

 

It's foolish to assume religion is all about "do this or go to hell". It shows you don't understand it at all.

 

So 28 years of being a believer in the christian faith and coming from a highly involved fundamental baptist family counts for nothing?

 

You can live free all you want... but when you start trying to dictate what I can believe and what I can't, that makes you wrong. That is what this whole debate is over.

 

I have not said you must stop believing what you want to believe. Continue to believe homosexuality is wrong all you want. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you. No one is forcing you to turn gay and marry a same gendered spouse. You and others like you DO want to force everyone else to continue to be discriminated against for no reason other than your opinion and the dogma of your religion.

 

You and others hate me for what I believe and you want to have the right to force me to do what you want.

 

I do not hate you. People not agreeing with you is not hating you.

 

We just had the same debate in our state over the day after pill. Your side wanted to force pharmacists to provide it against their religious beliefs. These issues are not separate. It's a constant and concerted effort to create religious intolerance and persecution. The "freedom of choice act" would force all doctors to perform abortions, even though it's against their oath. Same deal.

 

This is a slippery slope, and you should be wary as you tread it. I know you don't care about my rights because you hate what I believe, but one day it might be about your job, and your rights.

 

Okay, you are sounding like a serious cake eater here. Either religious organizations continue to be tax exempt and keep their preferences within their homes, hearts, and churches, or they don't and lose their tax exemption.

A pharmacy is a place of commerce not a holy relic. Check your dogma at the door or start requiring people to convert before stepping in.

OH, but THAT would hurt business! Hypocrites!

Besides, abortion and the morning after pill are LEGAL. So which is it? you either follow the law of the land and worry gay marriage will be legalized OR you ignore what is law and stop caring what gets passed when it comes to gay marriage.

 

The bottom line in all the religious group's teary cries is:

Till people are coming in your homes, forcing the morning after pills down your throat and forcing you to become a homosexual, you cannot claim to be persecuted. You cannot claim people are keeping you from following your faith. I'm sorry its so hard to not abort your babies or have sex with folks of your own gender, but your struggles to stay straight and pregnant are not everyone else's priority.

[sally4sara]

Right now it exists as a legal institution, because it existed as a religious institution. Men and women have formed unions since the beginning of time, but they were not called marriages.

 

Are you trying to say that religion plays no role in marriage?

 

No, we're just saying you don't get to pick which religion, or what customs, are worthy of being respected by everyone else.

 

You can only decide that for yourself and apply it to your own life.

[Untouchable_Fire]

No.

 

I NEVER DID.

 

I would challenge you to find the post where I said anything of the sort.

I'm glad they won, because the church isn't bound by the same standards as the state.

The New Jersey case was a little different. A lesbian couple wanted to get married at a park (or retreat maybe?) that was owned by the church. They were not asking for the church to perform the service, they were just asking to use the land. As far as I know, their claim was rejected.

I personally think that they did it as a move to intentionally challenge the church, which sucks because it only makes people less willing to concede anything to the homosexual rights cause. A lot of people pushing for gay rights are hurt by other people that just want to demand popular tolerance for gays. Certainly the state cannot discriminate, but when you piss off so many people in the process, you don't help your cause for being accepted in the larger society.

 

Sorry I mixed you up with Car Bomb.

 

So a church gets sued and, according to you, loses millions and NO NEWS ORGANIZATION publishes anything about it?

Not even local news organizations or papers IN Hawaii.

That fact certainly is suspect.

Thankfully I have family there. And they are a close little community. Stuff Like this gets discussed ad nauseum.

What church was it?

That'll certainly help me get the facts.

 

Our Church in Hawaii is small, it didn't cost millions because the church doesn't have millions. It's called Redeemer OPC.

 

Here is a quote from the NJ same sex marriage statute, which clearly provides no provision for protecting a church.

 

"New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws require those offering “goods, services, and facilities to the general public” to allow “any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual” without “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation."

 

For the most part, this is a good law, it just needs a provision to protect the church from the state.

[Untouchable_Fire]

No, we're just saying you don't get to pick which religion, or what customs, are worthy of being respected by everyone else.

You can only decide that for yourself and apply it to your own life.

 

So instead you get to define what customs and what religion is worthy of respect in terms of marriage?

 

No, to preserve everyone's rights we have to create new legal definitions all equal under the law.

[Untouchable_Fire]

So this is a fight over a word or the fact that gay people should be able to be unified with the exact same rights as hetros?

 

It's a big deal to me, because it provides me legal protection, and creates a proper church/state boundary.

[Untouchable_Fire]

And, a4a, UF claims gay people can choose to be hetero!

I called him on that, asking if he could picture himself french kissing a male, but he refuses to address the question.

 

Hey, if you show me a conclusive scientific study, that shows gay people cannot choose, I will agree with you.

 

Also, I answered your question with great clarity... it just wasn't what you want to hear.

[hotgurl]

If the government says that I have to provide a pill that I object to on a moral level... that is discrimination.

 

The fact is that in nearly every place this issue has been raised it's been proven that these pills are readily available, and very easy to get. So, why did people try to create a law to fix something that is not a problem?

 

no your employer is the one telling you to dispense the pill. Not the government. They can fire you but than you can sue for discrimination. based on religion and you will probably win. Most companies will make accomadations.

a more accurate comparision would be the government saying if you are christian than you can not work in a pharmacy.

 

If the government legalizes gay marriage it WILL force my church to perform them. Think about it... the law wont distinguish one type of union from another, so to marry one couple, and turn another away will be subject to discrimination suits.

 

no there is specific language in the bill of rights that addresses this and prevents it from happening.

 

And... it's Ok for the government to dictate what that spiritual aspect means?

 

no but it is wrong for the government to make laws that effects all of its citizens based on the religion of some.

[a4a]

It's a big deal to me, because it provides me legal protection, and creates a proper church/state boundary.

 

You don't answer the questions do you.

 

How are the "gays" wanting to be married going to take your rights away from you?

 

and I guess you can choose to be gay since you think it is a choice. Maybe that is where the fear and homophobia start. They could possibly turn you gay if they had their way.

 

Honey, I got news with that 'tude they wouldn't want you pitchin' or catchin' on their team.

[a4a]

No, but he continually claims that he has, yet I can read every single post on this thread, and he still hasn't answered mine.

 

I asked again just now. Let's see what the answer is.

 

The gays are obviously out to turn us all gay and squash marital rights for heteros!

 

The gay agenda.

[Untouchable_Fire]

So 28 years of being a believer in the christian faith and coming from a highly involved fundamental baptist family counts for nothing?

 

It can count for a lot... depending on your level of understanding.

 

I have not said you must stop believing what you want to believe. Continue to believe homosexuality is wrong all you want. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you. No one is forcing you to turn gay and marry a same gendered spouse. You and others like you DO want to force everyone else to continue to be discriminated against for no reason other than your opinion and the dogma of your religion.

I do not hate you. People not agreeing with you is not hating you.

 

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, though the majority do.

 

How am I discriminating by calling it a civil union and not a marriage.

 

You realize that is basically what we are debating here... Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage.

 

Okay, you are sounding like a serious cake eater here. Either religious organizations continue to be tax exempt and keep their preferences within their homes, hearts, and churches, or they don't and lose their tax exemption.

A pharmacy is a place of commerce not a holy relic. Check your dogma at the door or start requiring people to convert before stepping in.

OH, but THAT would hurt business! Hypocrites!

Besides, abortion and the morning after pill are LEGAL. So which is it? you either follow the law of the land and worry gay marriage will be legalized OR you ignore what is law and stop caring what gets passed when it comes to gay marriage.

 

Personally, I will do what I am called to do regardless of what the law states. I am fortunate to live in a place where those two things rarely cause issues.

 

Now, you don't have a right to legislate my beliefs the moment my butt leaves a pew. To tell people that they have to leave their beliefs and morals at home when they go to work is a very fascist view, and if we take that stance as a society it WILL bite us in the behind.

 

The government should not have the right to lock people out of jobs based on religion... that is discrimination plain and simple.

 

The bottom line in all the religious group's teary cries is:

Till people are coming in your homes, forcing the morning after pills down your throat and forcing you to become a homosexual, you cannot claim to be persecuted. You cannot claim people are keeping you from following your faith. I'm sorry its so hard to not abort your babies or have sex with folks of your own gender, but your struggles to stay straight and pregnant are not everyone else's priority.

 

That was pointless. I'm not stopping anybody from being gay or getting an abortion. I'm just saying I have a right to not be involved in those activities.

 

If you tell me what I can and cannot believe, or lock me out of jobs, scholarships, and the like based on my faith... that is the very definition of discrimination.