WHAT is the PROBLEM with gay marriage?

[SyracuseDemocrat]

I know I'm preaching to the choir here folks, but i gotta get this shit out. To me this is an issue of fundamental human rights, and i detest the Family Research Council and their allies. They act like being gay is a choice and that it's a sin. I'll tell you what a sin is. Dad coming home drunk and beating the shit out of his son because he got a B on his test is a sin. Dad beating the shit out of Mom because she burned his eggs is a sin. Dad calling his son a faggot because Dad is not comfortable with his sexuality is a sin.

I don't have problems with gay adoption. There are so many kids in orphanages who need homes. Gay marriage doesn't affect me. If gay people love each other and want to enter loving and committed relationships, then more power to them. It doesn't have to be a man and a woman. The divorce rate in this country over 50%, WITHOUT gay marriage. These family organizations are talking about how the gay community should have to justify their quest for equal rights. We've seen this before folks. We saw blacks using seperate water fountains last century. We saw black people being forced to sit in the back of the bus, and they were being refused their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. That was unacceptable then, and THIS discrimination is unacceptable now.

In case you're wondering why I have a gay pride flag next to my name if I'm not gay, I'll tell you why. Here's a good quote: "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". The Family Research Council is the evil, and I am one of the good men who is not sitting by and doing nothing. There are many others on here - too many to name in fact. You're all good people.

I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality to have no problem with gay marriage. I will never preach moral values.

Thank you all for reading this.

~SyracuseDemocrat

[SyracuseDemocrat]

1. kick

:kick:

[jpgray]

2. Gays do deserve MARRIAGE, not just civil unions. I agree with you

Equivocation on this issue boggles my mind, given the polls on it. Americans are FINE with gay marriage! They'd have to be hateful bigots not to be! Do these people think they will be forced to marry homosexuals? If not, what business is it of theirs? I don't understand the opposition to this, especially among some of our more liberal candidates.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

3. It's all politics.

Politics is trumping justice, sadly.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. Snce marriage is a religious sacrament...

...and in most religions homosexuality is a sin, that would be the issue with homosexual marriage. The follow on point would be that everyone should have a "civil union" for their legal union.

[jpgray]

9. Nonsense, the Justice of the Peace can do marriages (nt)

[QC]

21. Civil marriage is not a sacrament.

Government is not in the sacrament business. The church is.

Unfortunately, many people do confuse the civil and religious aspects of marriage, as you have done here. Thus they fear that legalizing same-sex marriage means that Brother Jimmy will have to perform faggot weddings down at the Outer Suburbia Family Worship Center.

I'm perfectly fine with the notion of "civil unions," if that will lower resistance, but the notion that legalizing same-sex marriage constitutes government interference in religious sacraments is just plain ole bullshit.

[JanMichael]

34. Sorry but it's not.

Secular Marriages are just as valid and prevalent as the religious variety.

Matter of fact I had a Secular Marriage today with zero mention of God, god or gods.

So pooh on the religious exclutivity argument.

[Demobrat]

8. I have no problem with gay marriage.

But I am adamantly for separation of church and state. As long as gays can get married at city hall, or wherever, I think it should be up the individual churches to decide who can get married there. On a related note, are non-religious ceremonies recognized by churches now? If I got married in the Elvis chapel in Vegas (to the opposite sex), would I be considered married by the Catholic church, for instance? Just wondering.

[roughsatori]

12. No you would not be married. According to Catholic Doctrine

you would be living in sin as per the Catechism.

[sandnsea]

17. Americans are not fine with gay marriage

I don't know how we can continue to delude ourselves into believing that. It's just not true. Most are fine with civil unions, but not gay marriage. And it isn't just Christians that oppose gay marriage, other religions do too.

I can think Christians are totally wrong in mixing religion and government, but it doesn't change the fact that they're doing it. And they'll continue to do this as long as they elect the people who will cater to them. It may not be fair to deny gays a basic human right, but I suspect things will get a whole lot worse for everybody if we continue allowing Republicans to define the Democratic Party only by contoversial issues.

Sorry, that's what I think.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Nothing Syracuse Democrat

I'm a hetero married for almost 30 years. There is nothing wrong with gay marriages except they offend the dumbass sensibilities of dumbasses who think they are the moral scribes of this country. I don't really give a rats ass about them. Earlier this week, I helped a neighbor move out of her house because her "straight" relationship didn't work out. Those who oppose gay unions will have to answer to a much higher power than me.

[Aidoneus]

5. they're an "Other" for reactionary forces to rally people against

Historically it seems that some types of easily manipulated people need somebody who is different from them to hate and fear in order to feel more secure about themselves, and today's charlatans like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and a whole section of politicians make their livelihoods out of directing these people towards something to hate.

The nature of gay people or marriage is irrelevant to the process.

[davidinalameda]

6. cool

welcome to the fight!

[roughsatori]

10. Not everyone here is in the choir

I am though. But "civil unions" is the better term. That makes it a state not religious argument. Or else "Christians" will claim you are trying to tamper with their Bible given responsibility not to allow gays the same rights they have. Even here we have people who believe the state should demand equality--but that the Church has a God given duty to treat gays by a different set of rules.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

11. Who cares?

People claiming the title of "Good christian" have been ruining this country for more than 300 years. It's about time we struck back.

[roughsatori]

14. I agree with you completely

I was just paraphrasing some recent DU posts regarding gay ordination and marriage.

[Kamika]

13. the view of a christian democrat (dont beat me up please)

Ok this is the deal here.. im no fundie by any means and im pretty liberal but hear me out.

a religious marriage (and the whole concept of marriage is religious) is designed for a man and a woman, the whole bible is man and woman , thats the reason for a marriage, to bond a man and a woman and they multiply.

Now i have absolutely NOTHING against some sort of evidence that they are a couple a civil union with EVERY right that a married couple has.. and the right to adopt absolutely.

BUT the religious marriage is between a man and a woman and thats that really..

Homosexuals could maybe start a new kind of marriage that was based on just pure love and not a religious tradition, but leave the traditional religious one as it is..

and please no flames..

[jpgray]

15. There are marriages by the Justice of the Peace--totally secular

Sorry, but unless you are married by your church, marriage can have nothing to do with religion.

[Kamika]

16. the whole marriage idea is religious

even if its performed by someone that isnt religious the whole concept of being married is religious

[jpgray]

23. Scads of heathens and pagan Romans/Greeks married.

Animals that choose one mate for life have no religion to support it. I don't see the problem of giving secular marriage to homosexuals. If they wished to be married in a Catholic church, I could see your point, but being selfish about the word "marriage" doesn't make sense to me. The tradition of male/female marriage isn't bound only in religion, it's bound in bonds and trust between two partners, and those have existed for homosexual couples as much as they have for heterosexual couples.

[roughsatori]

18. So if God (via the Bible) tells you not to give people equality

you are not a bigot? Or is it that you can't be a bigot because you're not giving other people the same rights you have comes from God, and since God is perfect, God can't be a bigot?

[Kamika]

20. did you ever see life of brian?

watch the scene where the guy argues for the right to have a baby.. thats my answer to that

[roughsatori]

22. I have not seen the movie

and don't plan to go rent a movie and take 2 hours viewing it to see what argument you are making when you can't even take the time to clearly explain your objections.

[Kamika]

24. see it :)

its a great movie

[roughsatori]

25. you are obviously incorrigible

So I will make a note to watch the movie. :P

[donco6]

27. It is pretty darn funny, I must say.

The whole movie pokes a lot of fun at various social issues.

And then there's the Martians . . .

[donco6]

28. A *conservative Christian* marriage, maybe . . .

But, not every religion is conservative or Christian.

I've been best man in several weddings (always the bridesmaid . . . ). From my observation, a marriage is just a civil union with some religious trappings. The real legal part of the ceremony takes place in the pastor's office when the bride, groom and witnesses sign the marriage license. The singing, processions, blah blah, take place in the church. If gays were allowed civil unions, what's to stop them from finding a sympathetic church (Episcopal, perhaps?), merge the civil union with ceremony, and call it "marriage?" It would look the same to all concerned.

[Chovexani]

54. Religious Marriage vs. Civil Marriage

ITA with you. I've noticed an unfortunate tendancy on the part of DUers (and a lot of other people too) to equate "religion" with "conservative Christianity". This just isn't true. Many faith groups perform gay marriages. Mine's one of them.

Of course, we call marriages "handfastings", and the concept is a little different, but it's basically the same idea. I've helped facilitate a number of gay handfastings, as well as hetero ones, and frankly the only difference is that the hetero ones got to sign a paper at the end making it legal in the eyes of NY state. What would it hurt to let gay or lesbian couples do the same? They're already married to us, so you can't use the religious argument against it.

It's a load of crap. As my TV boyfriend Jon Stewart said the other night on TDS, "if they're not making us marry gay, then what's the problem?"

--Chovexani

[BlueState]

29. I agree with you partially

That the concept of marriage is principally a religous one.

I think a church has every right to say that "We believe marriage is defined as one man and one woman and that is that." Clearly separation of church and state allows them to do so and be left alone. However, I believe the converse is also true, if a faith wishes to change the traditional view of marriage and open it up to gays, they should. And again there is no place for government to interfere with this. It is of course, up to church leaders to justify it on theological level.

Clearly, a literal interpretation of the bible would not lend itself to this, but there are religous institutions who have veered away from a literal interpretation in many areas. Why not this one?

I too, will put in a disclaimer to, hopefully, avoid being flamed. I am not religous. I didn't add this to thread to begin a theocratic debate, I am certainly not qualified to participate in one.

The ultimate solution, which I know is completly unworkable goes back to your statement that marriage is religous. All couples same or opposite sex should be given the same rights under a domestic parner law. Abolish civil marriage. For legal reasons register as domestic partners. If you want to be "married" go to your church or religous intstitution.

[Darranar]

19. What?

Marriage is extremely sacred and it must be between a man and a woman! That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it should be! Gays are abominations! /sarcasm off.

I agree with you completely. The Christian Right in our country is polluting amny people's thoughts.

[donco6]

26. Time is on our side.

Though I'm only in my 40s, I've seen so many POSITIVE changes wrt the general public's view of gays and gay issues, that I believe ultimately the side of fairness will win out over the bigotry. What we'll have to go through in the meantime - who knows? But one day everyone will be able to choose their own mate, and no one will give a cr*p about it.

Marriage, civil unions - whatever. I personally believe marriage is a failed anachronism, and can't quite understand why people would want to "marry." I wouldn't mind having the legal issues clarified - which is what civil unions would accomplish. If C.U.s are a first step, I can be patient.

[liberalpragmatist]

30. I see no issue w/ gay marriage, but I'm willing to be pragmatic

Since legalizing gay marriage would only concern civil marriage, I, in principle, am not at all opposed. However, I also think that among the general public there is a major association between the term "marriage" and the sacred religious institution, even when discussing civil marriage.

For that reason, I'm willing to support civil unions intead of gay marriage, at least as an interim solution for the next few decades. Politically, I think what needs to be enacted is the best possible solution that can be passed. Gay marriage cannot -- at least not yet. Civil unions (which is civil marriage under a different name).

Frankly, rather than try to differentiate gay civil marriage from gay civil unions, as Kerry and Dean have been (pathetically) trying to do, I think they should just come out (no pun intended) and say (as is indicated by their statements, such as America not being "ready", etc) that they personally have no moral problem w/ gay civil marriage (a position I do think they both hold) BUT that they realize that many well-meaning people do and that if we try to push for full gay civil marriage it WON'T be passed. Therefore, we should go for what can be passed, which are gay civil unions.

Of course, I'm not a politician, so I wouldn't know -- it's not idea, I realize that, but to me, that kind of admission would sound much better than their half-hearted defenses for civil unions versus gay marriage.

[wishvol]

31. Gay marriage

I wouldn't concern myself with what the different religions,politicians,or political parties think as they are all worldly institutions and loyalty to them only leads to enslavement and bondage.
Sin erodes,breaks down,crumbles and destroys,physically,mentally,spiritually and emotionally everyone who indulges in sinful behavior.The hurt,pain,heartache,misery and trouble that we've caused for ourselves in this world is a testament to this fact.
Us humans continue to seek the truth in this world,but quickly and easily believe the lie and then can't understand why the world is in such a sorry shape,and all thats left for us is to point the finger of blame because we refuse to accept the truth of God's word.If it's freedom that we desire instead of bondage,don't look to the institutions of this world but instead look to the SON."whom the son sets free is free indeed".Sin kills.This is truth.We would do well to search the scriptures and learn the difference between good and evil,right and wrong,and sinful behavior and Godly behavior.Future generations are dependant on it.

[ulysses]

32. so...erm...

what's your position on gay marriage?

[wishvol]

33. Well, my position is.......

does the word of God speak specifically to homosexual behavior?

[ulysses]

35. not an answer, but I'll play along.

Define "word of God". Paul spoke specifically to "homosexual behavior", Jesus didn't. In my book, that rates a "no".

Your turn.

[wishvol]

36. I submit......

2 peter 3:16 "All scripture is give by inspiration of God.
Also John 1 states "In the beginning was the word(Jesus Christ) and thw word was with God and the word was God.He was in the beginning with God.

If God's word speaks specifically to homosexuality then Jesus speaks specifically to it.

Again what does the word of God say in regards to homosexuality?

[ulysses]

37. I submit in return

that your understanding of the word logos (word) is lacking in the metaphorical sense in which John meant it to be understood.

I submit that Paul, not God, spoke specifically to homosexuality.

What say you? Are you a Paulist?

[wishvol]

38. With all due respect.......

you are mistaken.Reading a little further into the book of John,chapter 1 verse 14 we find:"And the word became flesh and dwelt among us,and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father,full of grace and truth.

Again,if God's word speaks specifically to homosexuality,then Jesus speaks specifically to it.
A house divided against itself will not stand.
The Father,the Son,and the Holy spirit are one according to the word,and are not divided against themselves.

Unfortunately one of the tricks us humans use to avoid the truth of the scriptures is to Deny that they are of God.
(you can't believe nothing Paul says,he is nothing but a homophobe)

[ulysses]

39. ok, then - we disagree on new testament interpretation

Where do you stand on gay marriage?

[wishvol]

43. ulysses...I've enjoyd our discussion.....

as I do any discussion of God's word,because I feel it's very important in these perilious times.In regards to Gay marriage.I stand upon the word of God.Knowing that you've obviously read the bible and seem to be a very reasonable person,I can say with confidence that you know where I stand.

[ulysses]

44. I suspect that I do, yes,

especially given your reluctance to state it outright in this forum.

I think you're wrong, and I think that if Jesus returned today he'd tell you that you're wrong too.

But yes, thanks for the discussion. ;-)

[wishvol]

46. Well if Jesus were to come back today and...

tell me that I was wrong,then he has changed his way of thinking.
Hebrews 13:8 though states that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,today,and forever.This world changes with the direction of the wind but his truth never changes.

[ulysses]

50. let me ask you this, then.

(And I'd appreciate a straight (!) answer this time.)

Do you advocate for the outlawing, in secular law, of gay unions by whatever name? If not, we don't really have much to discuss since your biblical literalism is your issue and not mine.

[TrogL]

53. Hebrews is Paul

Jesus' words filtered through Paul are unreliable.

[greekspeak]

40. Sin kills and "Truth"

are YOUR personal perceptions of it, filtered through Biblical teaching. What has that to do with the civil rights of two people of the same sex to be married in the eyes of the state?

[wishvol]

47. Well it seems to me that with......

the broken homes,broken marriages,broken schools,broken relationships,broken promises,war,hunger,poverty,violence,suicide,drugs,hate greed arrogance,pride,and selfishness.The destruction that we've wrought upon ourselve is in fact reality and certainly not just my perception.Because we've given in to our sinful natures this world in on the verge of collapse,a whisker away from total annihilation,and our civil rights aren't gonna do us one bit of good when this world implodes upon itself.We foolishly attempt to secure freedom for ourselves with the constitution,and the bill of rights,and man-made institutions of this world instead of believing the truth of God's word"Whom the son sets free is free indeed",lettin God know that we can do it apart from him and his word,and all that we've gotten for ourselves is the broken condition in which we see the world today.Yet we cling to the lie and are as chained and shackled as any prisoner in solitary confinement.The truth to us is whatever we believe it to be,in essence setting ourselves above God when Jesus plainly states:"I am the way,the truth,and the life.For the future of our world and our children we need to get our minds off of ourselves and our worldly pleasures and search for the truth and the truth begins and ends with Jesus Christ.God have mercy on us all.

[donco6]

49. Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before.

Typical fundie Christian claptrap.

Not buying it.

[jono]

51. "The truth to us is whatever we believe it to be"

I would submit that this holds true of scripture and Christianity as well.

[karlschneider]

52. Take your dead godlet on a stick and shove him up your bum.

:grr:

[TrogL]

41. People want to feel special

People who believe in "the sanctity of marriage" want it to be special. They want married people to get special status and special treatment (eg. tax breaks).

If just any old person can get married, it's no longer special.

Gays want to get in on this "special" status.

[WindRavenX]

42. A simple answer:

People are still insecure with the idea of 2 men/women in a stable, loving relationship. People are homophobic.
How they justify denying same sex couples the right to adopt children when so many children are in need of a loving home is mindboggling. That may be the most immoral thing in the world today- preventing good people from helping kids today. This saddens me more that anything.
People need to grow up and realize that just because it makes THEM uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be illegal. Live and let live.

[MrPrax]

45. We need more happy People on this Planet

and a little less than those run by 'fear' of what someone might think of me and my political choices

Gay marriage...no problemo

Apparantly religious people are unhappy with their religions and can't handle a secular society and its equality, social justice and freedom!!

To hell with the 'wondering' what the neighbors might think...

If it were up to them, then divorce, miscengenation and condoms would be outlawed as well...

Society should bring out the best of a spiritual and loving community...not an edict

[OrdinaryTa]

48. Problems With Essentialism

They act like being gay is a choice

This is actually a more difficult question than many people realize. Problems with the essentialist view of homosexuality are the reason many academics have embraced constructivism. Also, it's easier to reconcile constructivism with feminism. Essentialism is popular because it appears to be more forgiving, but that consideration is really irrelevant. Feminists are uncomfortable with social doctrines that promote the idea that political roles have a physical basis.

Another problem with essentialism is that queerness is not monolithic. The fact that people differ from some hypothetical norm does not imply that they have anything else in common. Essentialism is at pains to account for all these arbitrary "natural" differences. Constructivism is not so burdened.

[buddhamama]

55. we (decent people everywhere)

need to band together and stop the violations.

Human Rights are not tied to political parties,religions,etc. or at least they are not supposed to be.

we must create the world we wish to live in.
we are far behind--let's get to work.