How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[clv0116]

Really? They are all privately funded, huh?

 

On the day Feed the Children starts performing marriages you will have a point. Until then, not so much.

[LaGazelle]

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.

 

 

In the Bible, having a certain haircolour is not a criterion for Christian marriage. This sort of mocking feedback is part of the reason this whole discourse is so difficult for all involved.

 

Let's set aside the religious concept of freedom of will for the moment, and consider there is also a legal aspect to it. I don't know many people, gay or otherwise, who are keen to live in an Orwellian world where they are denied equal legal privelege. We already live in a world where one can be sent to prison for reading the Bible - i.e practising one's belief even though it says in our legal statutes that all humans have that right.

 

In any case, if it makes you feel any better, marriage will eventually go in the direction gay activists desire,... if you can allow yourself to believe Bible prophecies!

[Island Girl]

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...

 

I could only interpret your use of question marks as a response.

 

Usually that would mean you question the entire comment and have no idea what it means and want clarification.

 

So if you do know that elsewhere in the world marriage is used differently sometimes and means different things...soooo the meaning for "the entire being of humanity" is not the same as yours...then why did you say that?

[Island Girl]

On the day Feed the Children starts performing marriages you will have a point. Until then, not so much.

 

 

So even though they get Federal money -- that is tax payer money -- you are not willing to acknowledge that they aren't entirely Privately Funded?

[clv0116]

So even though they get Federal money -- that is tax payer money -- you are not willing to acknowledge that they aren't entirely Privately Funded?

 

Is it your belief that Feed the Children is a Church and should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies?

[clv0116]

In the Bible, having a certain haircolour is not a criterion for Christian marriage.

 

In the Bible, most premarital sex is a capital offense. Shall we really be strict about this? The point is that unless something is publicly funded there's really no reasonable basis for forcing the will of the public on their otherwise legal activities.

 

I also find singling out a specific group for special treatment simply due to their sexual preference distasteful but we seem to be hell bent on seeing gays as some sort of minority group worthy of special consideration.

 

I await the day we feel the same about "red-heads who practice polygamy" but I'm not holding my breath.

[Island Girl]

Is it your belief that Feed the Children is a Church and should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies?

 

We aren't just talking about Feed the Children.

 

Having read your some of your posts about taxation I am truly surprised.

 

It is one thing for you to choose to give your money to your church. It is quite another to have your tax dollars distributed to other religious organizations, isn't it?

 

These FBOs that receive money include:

 

"Congregation-based FBOs, consisting of churches, synagogues, mosques, or other houses of worship that provide social services directly"

[clv0116]

"Congregation-based FBOs, consisting of churches, synagogues, mosques, or other houses of worship that provide social services directly"

 

Does that money go to fund weddings? I doubt it.

[sally4sara]

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.

 

This is like saying you always supported equal rights for black people, you're willing to hire them and live near them, but you don't understand why you have to stop calling them n*****s.

 

If you don't know why they can't just give up on using the word marriage, they probably don't know why you can't just give up on denying them the word marriage.

 

By mandating what they can or cannot call their "union", you force them to be recognized as different. This is also a discrimination. A Jewish marriage has a different ceremony and isn't a christian faith. Should they stop saying they are married too?

 

Its just a word. And this is all about money changing hands once you wear away the dogma and contention.

NY is currently about to pass gay marriage. A journalist commented on the startling lack of religious uproar and wondered why the huge catholic church wasn't rising to the fight.

The catholic church in NY is broke. All their money has gone to fighting another bill.

[Island Girl]

we seem to be hell bent on seeing gays as some sort of minority group worthy of special consideration.

 

I don't see them as a special group deserving of special rights.

 

I see them as people just like me who are deserving of equal rights.

I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

I would hope no one really cares what I do either.

 

It doesn't mean their opinions mean more or less than mine do or that their vote counts more or less, etc.

 

We are equals.

 

I understand caring for someone so much that you want to commit to it; wanting to make a life with a partner and share all moments even if that means the last moments of life in an ICU unit, or final arrangements, etc.

 

Who am I to deprive them of that?

 

And who am I to say what they should or shouldn't call it?

[sally4sara]

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.

 

Once upon a time, when people said the word "Earth", everyone thought "flat" and people who said otherwise risked being declared a witch or heretic. It didn't make the world stay flat.

Wife also equaled property at one point; still is in some countries. My co-worker's brother was not able to get married because he couldn't afford the mother-in-law's asking price for her daughter AND her travel expenses. That isn't going to change for him if gays can suddenly get married.

 

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 don't have any gay friends that have their wedding day on hold till the law changes either. That may change if the attitudes they deal with on the subject change.

[LaGazelle]

In the Bible, most premarital sex is a capital offense. Shall we really be strict about this? The point is that unless something is publicly funded there's really no reasonable basis for forcing the will of the public on their otherwise legal activities.

 

I also find singling out a specific group for special treatment simply due to their sexual preference distasteful but we seem to be hell bent on seeing gays as some sort of minority group worthy of special consideration.

 

I await the day we feel the same about "red-heads who practice polygamy" but I'm not holding my breath.

 

I actually misinterpreted your previous post to be pro-gay marriage sarcasm!

 

Anyway, re the point highlighted in your post above. I agree - the special gay "hate crime" laws are worrying. It is already a legal offence to attack people for any reason, so we absolutely do not need specific laws to govern attacking gay people - they are already covered. There is a lot of information in "After The Ball" about this. It primarily relates to paving a pathway to supercede other laws. Part of the get "equality" by any means possible approach outlined by the gay movement strategists.

 

This hate crime law actually forms the basis by which Christians can be sent to prison for reading the Bible in the UK, even though constitutionally that is not allowed. Basically, their view is that reading the bible passge which condemn homosexuality is "hateful" , and therfore a crime. Unbelievably Orwellian! So, in effect the end result is that gay specific laws can override the legal rights of other citizens. In the US there is also the situation, where the courts have managed to override democracy i.e the only states where full gay "marriage" is "legal" are those where the courts have overidden majority vote.

[clv0116]

I don't see them as a special group deserving of special rights

 

An unmarried man can marry one and only one woman. Unless he's gay, in which case he, according to some, should be able to marry a man. That's special treatment.

[LaGazelle]

This is like saying you always supported equal rights for black people, you're willing to hire them and live near them, but you don't understand why you have to stop calling them n*****s.

 

If you don't know why they can't just give up on using the word marriage, they probably don't know why you can't just give up on denying them the word marriage.

 

By mandating what they can or cannot call their "union", you force them to be recognized as different. This is also a discrimination. A Jewish marriage has a different ceremony and isn't a christian faith. Should they stop saying they are married too?

 

Its just a word. And this is all about money changing hands once you wear away the dogma and contention.

NY is currently about to pass gay marriage. A journalist commented on the startling lack of religious uproar and wondered why the huge catholic church wasn't rising to the fight.

The catholic church in NY is broke. All their money has gone to fighting another bill.

 

Recognising difference is by no stretch of the imagination discrimination! Is it discriminatory to say a woman is a woman just because it highlights that she is different to a man?!

 

"N£$ger" was historically a derogatory term, "union" never has been. This is a comparison between apples and pears. A more reasonable comparison would be saying it is non-discriminatory to call gay f&*gots.

[sally4sara]

Recognising difference is by no stretch of the imagination discrimination! Is it discriminatory to call a woman, a woman just because it highlights she is different to a man?!

 

"N£$ger" was historically a derogatory term, "union" never has been. This is a comparison between apples and pears. A more reasonable comparison would be saying it is non-discriminatory to call gay f&*gots.

 

But it still boils down to you don't get to do what I do because ......

 

because why?

 

The word marriage has meant so many things that are not always even similar to each other. Not even the definition is constant.

Hetero christian America didn't come up with the word, so the concept that they can say others cannot use it is DISCRIMINATORY.

 

Atheists as well as many non christian faiths get married, people marry for love, money, to escape their family, for pregnancy, to pretend to be straight, for convenience etc..........your christian god applies to this and blesses this because of a gender difference?

No, if your god exists as the religion describes him, he knows all including what is hidden in their hearts. No matter who's marriage a church will or will not bless.

 

A word that gets used to describe so many different types of partnering excludes one of these types and you don't don't see how that is discrimination?

[LaGazelle]

But it still boils down to you don't get to do what I do because ......

 

because why?

 

The word marriage has meant so many things that are not always even similar to each other. Not even the definition is constant.

Hetero christian America didn't come up with the word, so the concept that they can say others cannot use it is DISCRIMINATORY.

 

Atheists as well as many non christian faiths get married, people marry for love, money, to escape their family, for pregnancy, to pretend to be straight, for convenience etc..........your christian god applies to this and blesses this because of a gender difference?

No, if your god exists as the religion describes him, he knows all including what is hidden in their hearts. No matter who's marriage a church will or will not bless.

 

A word that gets used to describe so many different types of partnering excludes one of these types and you don't don't see how that is discrimination?

 

 

Marriage doesn't just exclude one type of partnering - it covers just one type of partnering. There are many other pairings one could come up with that could also by your logic be termed marriage.

 

The fundamental thing should be that you have the same legal and civil rights. If you have the same rights then there is no discrimination.

 

If what you want is to be accepted by all, no law can give you that. You must accept yourself. Even if a law forces others to accept you, and even if some others pretend to accept you, they might truly not. That is life.

 

Everyone has freedom of choice. You can choose to live your life the way you want, accept and reject the things you want to - including the religious beliefs that you don't approve of, and so can others!

[clv0116]

But it still boils down to you don't get to do what I do because ......

 

Pretty sure gay men can marry, and have historically done so, and probably continue to do so.

[sally4sara]

Marriage doesn't just exclude one type of partnering - it covers just one type of partnering.

 

Are you trying to say that there is no difference, from one to the other, between two people marrying for any of the reasons I mentioned. Two people could marry for any of those reasons and its all the same simply because of gender? Your god blesses the marriage of one person hoping to get to another person's money, one person marrying another just to get citizenship, a male and female satanist's ceremony, the guy who hasn't blacked his spouses eye yet to settle an argument but intends to because she is his wife now? I would think you'd get the comment about christian god knowing their hearts.

 

These things do happen! But its all cool with god so long as there is only one penis under the blankets at night? Come on! You're conveniently accepting situations I KNOW christian churches would turn away.

My catholic ex husband and I (raised baptist) couldn't find a church to marry us for our difference. You're trying to say its all the same to the chuches? You know that isn't true.

 

There are many other pairings one could come up with that could also by your logic be termed marriage.

 

The fundamental thing should be that you have the same legal and civil rights. If you have the same rights then there is no discrimination.

 

Gays don't have the same rights, hence, the thread.

 

If what you want is to be accepted by all, no law can give you that. You must accept yourself. Even if a law forces others to accept you, and even if some others pretend to accept you, they might truly not. That is life.

 

I am not gay. I know, shocking right?

I do accept myself as well as my gay friends. I know no law can force everyone to accept everyone. THAT is why it is discrimination to deny gays the right to marry. People can still choose to not get gay married even after gays are given the same rights. People can still not approve of it. No part of gays having their rights make anyone have to like it.

I didn't like having G. W. Bush as a president for 8 years, but he was and I still went on with my day to day. See?

Gays could have the same rights and you can still choose to not like it but it would at least be equal.

 

Everyone has freedom of choice. You can choose to live your life the way you want, accept and reject the things you want to - including the religious beliefs that you don't approve of, and so can others!

 

Not everyone has freedom of choice, again...hence the thread. I don't approve of some things, but I don't expect laws to be passed against the people I don't approve of. If I did, there would be no churches. By your logic, that would NOT be discrimination, it would be the way I choose to live my life.

[LaGazelle]

Are you trying to say that there is no difference, from one to the other, between two people marrying for any of the reasons I mentioned. Two people could marry for any of those reasons and its all the same simply because of gender? Your god blesses the marriage of one person hoping to get to another person's money, one person marrying another just to get citizenship, a male and female satanist's ceremony, the guy who hasn't blacked his spouses eye yet to settle an argument but intends to because she is his wife now? I would think you'd get the comment about christian god knowing their hearts.

 

These things do happen! But its all cool with god so long as there is only one penis under the blankets at night? Come on! You're conveniently accepting situations I KNOW christian churches would turn away.

My catholic ex husband and I (raised baptist) couldn't find a church to marry us for our difference. You're trying to say its all the same to the chuches? You know that isn't true.

 

 

 

Gays don't have the same rights, hence, the thread.

 

 

 

I am not gay. I know, shocking right?

I do accept myself as well as my gay friends. I know no law can force everyone to accept everyone. THAT is why it is discrimination to deny gays the right to marry. People can still choose to not get gay married even after gays are given the same rights. People can still not approve of it. No part of gays having their rights make anyone have to like it.

I didn't like having G. W. Bush as a president for 8 years, but he was and I still went on with my day to day. See?

Gays could have the same rights and you can still choose to not like it but it would at least be equal.

 

 

 

Not everyone has freedom of choice, again...hence the thread. I don't approve of some things, but I don't expect laws to be passed against the people I don't approve of. If I did, there would be no churches. By your logic, that would NOT be discrimination, it would be the way I choose to live my life.

 

 

You have thrown all sorts of things into the mix here, which to me form a meaningless conundrum that necessitates stating the obvious and requires reiteration of points I've already made.

 

As an example, you might not have voted for Bush, but because the number of citizens who voted for him at the time outnumbered those who didn't, he became president in keeping with the legal democratic constitution.

 

Also, in keeping with the legal democratic constitution, is the principle that gays have the same legal rights that heterosexuals have, or where they don't yet have them, steps are being taken to enable them to. Getting married in a Church is not a legal right.

 

No Christian Church would bless a Satanist marriage ceremony, that is horse manure!

 

The Christian Church does not bless marriage so a man can abuse a woman, and in any case the Orwellian alternative of denying someone the freedom because someone baselessly thinks they intend to do sth is pure poppycock. What next ..."we can see it in your eyes that you intend...."!

 

The Christian Church also does not bless marriage so one partner can financially exploit the other, nor does it bless marraige for the sole purpooise of granting one partner citizenship - the legal rights do that, NOT the Church - that is pure nonesense. And yes, Christian marriage only covers one pairing - that between a man and a woman.

 

Re the point about God knowing what's in the heart...i didn't pinpoint it because it is a given. God knowing the heart of someone doesn't give them his approval to defy His will and principles, it gives them his love in spite of everything. God knows the heart of the man who chooses to take another's life, that does not mean He blesses that act! God knows the heart of all who go against any of the principles He sets for us, and loves us in spite of our choice to adhere or not, but that does not mean He approves of a Church blessing for all our actions!

 

Finally laws are passed in democratic societies based on principles linked to majority vote, just because you personally don't like the Church is not enough for it to be banned. You are just one small drop in a big wide ocean, and whilst you are entitled to your personal views, it does not negate the rights of others to be entitled to theirs.

[sally4sara]

You have thrown all sorts of things into the mix here, which to me form a meaningless conundrum that necessitates stating the obvious and requires reiteration of points I've already made.

 

As an example, you might not have voted for Bush, but because the number of citizens who voted for him at the time outnumbered those who didn't, he became president in keeping with the legal democratic constitution.

 

Thats what I said.

Meaning you don't have to like it for it to happen. Same applies to gay marriage.

 

Also, in keeping with the legal democratic constitution, is the principle that gays have the same legal rights that heterosexuals have, or where they don't yet have them, steps are being taken to enable them to. Getting married in a Church is not a legal right.

 

No Christian Church would bless a Satanist marriage ceremony, that is horse manure!

 

That's why I said it. I was being ironic. Churches do not bless every partnering I mentioned, but you said marriage covered only ONE kind (man and woman) when I gave many NON gay specific examples of marriage that gets called marriage legally.

 

The Christian Church does not bless marriage so a man can abuse a woman, and in any case the Orwellian alternative of denying someone the freedom because someone baselessly thinks they intend to do sth is pure poppycock. What next ..."we can see it in your eyes that you intend...."!

 

Again, irony. My grandparents were married. Legally married. Abuse happened. If you believe the christian god to be as described; all knowing....he knew my gpa was going to be an abuser. Did he bless the marriage because they were hetero?

 

People marry for many non church approved reasons and churches perform many of these ceremonies as long as the couple is straight. All the reasons you cite below (examples I gave earlier) are things people who do get legally married do that the church does not approve of, but they still are able to get legally married. WHY NOT GAYS TOO?

If people get legally married for non church approved reasons.........

Why not gays too?

Why not?

Because they are being discriminated against!

 

You agreed! Churches will not approve of some types of partnering that our legal system will. The approval of a church counts for nothing on this. The hetero people who get denied by the church are still legally able to get married, but not gays............that is discrimination.

 

The Christian Church also does not bless marriage so one partner can financially exploit the other, nor does it bless marraige for the sole purpooise of granting one partner citizenship - the legal rights do that, NOT the Church - that is pure nonesense. And yes, Christian marriage only covers one pairing - that between a man and a woman.

 

Exactly! That was my point! That is why it is discrimination.

 

Finally laws are passed in democratic societies based on principles linked to majority vote, just because you personally don't like the Church is not enough for it to be banned. You are just one small drop in a big wide ocean, and whilst you are entitled to your personal views, it does not negate the rights of others to be entitled to theirs.

 

Thank you for further illustrating my point.

Sorry to scare you, I only wished to put you in the shoes of gay America for a moment. Replace the word "church" with the words "gay community" and it might become clearer. Deep breaths, deeeeep breaths.

 

Finally laws are passed in democratic societies based on principles linked to majority vote, just because you personally don't like the Gay Community is not enough for it to be banned. You are just one small drop in a big wide ocean, and whilst you are entitled to your personal views, it does not negate the rights of others to be entitled to theirs.

 

See?

[Moai]

At this point in Western culture the religious component of marriage is meaningless. As far as the government is concerned, any marriage regardless of faith or lack thereof is identical.

 

I am an atheist, and when my wife and I got married there was no reference to any supreme being whatsoever. Yet, I have the same rights as a Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, or Muslim couple. Because the faith is irrelevant as far as marriage rights are concerned.

 

Marriage links the pair's finances, and gives the spouse the right to decide on medical treatment should the partner become incapacitated and unable to speak for him- or herself. The spouse is in charge of who can visit in the ICU. If one spouse were to unfortunately die without a will in place, the spouse gets control of the estate. Any children automatically stay with the living parent.

 

Now, consider if you are in a same-sex relationship, and any of the above happens. You cannot decide for your partner, his or her family makes the decision if you live or die--a family that could very probably have abandoned you when they found out about your orientation, who you haven't seen in decades. Your spouse is not allowed into the ICU without approval of said family. All of the finances built up between the two are separated and half goes to the family. If there are children involved, the genetic parents' family can step in and can take custody of the child.

 

Any two people should be able to enjoy the same rights as any other if they choose to be married.

 

No church has to marry them. No church even has to accept it.

[LaGazelle]

..,.

 

Any two people should be able to enjoy the same rights as any other if they choose to be married.

 

No church has to marry them. No church even has to accept it.

 

Exactly! Steps are being taken to enable same-sex couples all the legal rights that heterosexual couples have a right to. A Church ceremony is not a legal right and it is not even legally required for a couple to join together in union!

[clv0116]

"Without a will in place" is a non-argument. Everything you raised with the possible exception of custody of adopted children can be handled with existing legal instruments.

[Moai]

"Without a will in place" is a non-argument.

 

How so? I am young and so have no will. My wife doesn't either. Her father gave her her car before we were married. If something should happen to my wife, he doesn't get the car back. Not only that, if a man were to eave all of his possessions to his lover his family has a much easier time contesting the will.

 

Everything you raised with the possible exception of custody of adopted children can be handled with existing legal instruments.

 

False. How can someone who has no legal recognition of his or her relationship get access to their loved one in the ICU?

 

Beyond that, isn't the example of adopted children enough?

[clv0116]

How so?

 

If the issue matters enough to cry about not being able to be married, surely it is important enough to cause a will to be written.

 

 

 

 

False. How can someone who has no legal recognition of his or her relationship get access to their loved one in the ICU?

 

Durable power of attorney and other legal tools can provide essentially the same services. They create "legal recognition" so to speak.