Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right or a Religious Issue?
These are just my thoughts on the topic. I’m no expert, but I do have my opinions. Hopefully you are not offended. If you are, my bad.
A few weeks ago, I was watching the news and saw a story about the marriage of a gay Argentinean couple. I was watching it with my very religious aunt. As she twisted up her face at the image of the two men sharing their first kiss as a betrothed couple, we began to talk about our common struggle surrounding the issue of gay marriage.
All my life, I have been taught that being gay is a sin. I always cringe at this characterization because it feels wrong to say that what people are is in and of itself a sin, according to Christianity. The Good Book say that all sins are equal in the eyes of God right? And isn’t having sex outside of wedlock is a sin too? So why is homosexuality raised and touted as so much worse than everything else people do?
Even with all things considered, people who adhere very strictly to the Bible or another religious book deem marriage between a man and man, or a woman and woman as impermissible under the eyes of whatever God they serve. But is this really where the conversation on gay marriage should be focused?
What about considering the fact that people shouldn’t be told who they can or cannot choose to marry? Marriage isn’t just about what happens from a religious standpoint. Being married gives people access to mutual benefits that unmarried people wouldn’t be able to get for or from their spouses. For example, if your boyfriend or girlfriend of a number of years has great health care benefits, you probably can’t have access to them unless you are legally married (there are exceptions). If he or she is facing a life threatening illness, in most instances, you would have no right to make any decisions regarding his or her care. Not being able to do these things is your option based on your decision not to get married.
But imagine you are in a same-sex relationship. You have been with your boo for sometime and have made a lifetime commitment to each other. Unlike the straight couple who chose not to get married, you and your boo can’t get married. Period.
I am aware that these examples are simplistic — I am not trying to diminish any commitments people make to each other, or what marriage means. And no matter how I feel about homosexuality, I think its wrong for most states in this country to prevent people who want to formally commit to each other from entering into such a union. At one time (and almost still in Louisiana), governments had all kinds of reasons for not letting Black folk and White folk get married. I’m not saying that the struggle for gay rights and racial rights are the same. However, like with interracial marriage at one point, governments are picking and choosing who gets to exercise what civil rights. Because this issue seems to be grounded in the church, this type of control seems more permissible.
I don’t think this is fair. Especially when heterosexual people disrespect marriage left and right, what exactly are we preserving? Maybe calling it marriage isn’t the solution. But what about civil unions, or some other alternate to marriage that affords people access to the same rights and benefits as married folk?
Again, these are just my thoughts, right or wrong. Just what I was feeling at the time. What are your thoughts about gay marriage? Do you think the debate should be left to the church, the government, or somewhere in the middle? Is it offensive to the institution of marriage? What does the institution of marriage mean or represent? Are there things being left out of the discussion that should be considered? Let’s be respectful of each other’s thoughts and opinions.
Just trying to be fair,
74 Responses to “Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right or a Religious Issue?”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...
Leave A Comment...
-
- Help Us Grow! Subscribe!
I think if you actually want to see the issue be resolved, you’re better off leaving it to the gov’t. You arent going to convince religions that gays should be able to marry. But you might be able to make an argument that “civil unions” should grant the same rights/privileges as a “marriage.”
Reply
marriage is in fact a civil right; therefore, the church should not be a part of this discussion. it should be left to the government. now, churches should and do have the right to refuse to marry a couple for a number of reasons. i believe an individual church should be able to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a heterosexual couple; however, a court should not.
the discussion surrounding homosexuality has always baffled me. i do not choose to be attracted to men. as a heterosexual woman, i simply am. why would i believe that anyone else’s attraction is a choice? those who posit this argument, i believe, are closeted homosexuals who have chosen to deny their attractions. there is no choice when it comes to this.
approaching the subject as a catholic, my particular priest taught that being homosexual was not a sin because it was something one could not control. however, engaging in homosexual acts was sinful. sort of a hate-the-sin-and-not-the-sinner approach. i obviously disagree, but i respected his more tolerant view. but the religious discussion is such a personal and subjective one because everyone believes very strongly in their position. i know that while i am technically catholic, i practice my own brand of christianity that doesn’t include judgment or condemnation- no religion can claim that so i usually opt out of these discussions because they’re based on emotion rather than facts and no one’s emotion or religion is wrong, so eh…
this whole discussion irks me though. why do people feel they have a right to discuss and decide upon someone else’s right? a right means that you are entitled to it. it’s so bizarre that anyone in 2010 feels that someone else’s right is negotiable. ugh! and as black people, we should definitely know better than to support majority voting on minority rights. if you object to homosexual marriage from a religious standpoint, i understand. but to support exclusion is unfathomable to me.
Reply
Yola_nicola Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:29 am
This is my 1st time commenting but I’m over here all the time. I completely co-sign everything you said with an amen!
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Hope to see you comment again in the future.
Reply
LCD Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I’m new here too. co-sign!
Reply
Satya Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
I actually find it quite irritating that people tell me I should or should not co-sign a certain train of thought because I’m a minority.
Reply
LittleMissSunshine Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 1:06 am
exactly what I was going to say. Just how straight couples can choose whether or not to get married in a church, gay marriage should be BOTH a church issue and a state issue. Let homosexuals be married by government officiants and if churches choose to marry homosexual couples let them do that also. Marriage is not a “right” that is earned by heterosexuals so why should it be by homosexuals?
Reply
This is a tough one. Although I don’t understand/agree with homosexuality I am uncomfortable denying them the right to marriage. Married folks cheat on their spouses anyway, but my hope would be that allowing gay marriage would cut down on some of the unsafe sex practices and homophobia that plague this country. There are just too many other things for me to worry about other than people’s sexual preferences. I say let them get married and leave it up to the church to figure out whether they want to allow those types of marriages to be performed in their institution.
Reply
Nik Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 5:36 am
“There are just too many other things for me to worry about other than people’s sexual preferences.”
…EXACTLY…
It’s not my concern what someone else’s wedding or marriage looks like. Two men or two women getting married is not going to change my stance on marriage nor does it alter what marriage may one day mean/be to me. The fact remains that me and my loved on have the choice and they don’t, so give them their choice…their right.
I don’t even know why there’s a question about it. It really doesn’t matter how you or I feel about the situation because neither one of us is involved in their lives in any other aspect nor should we be involved in this capacity.
Reply
Ultimately, regardless of personal views, it’s not my place to tell people what they can and cannot do in their own lives. I think the right to gay marriage has become this whole big thing when really, the government needs to stop letting a handful of people dictate everything for everyone.
Maybe the church should focus less on keeping people from marriage and more on keeping people in marraige.
Reply
N.I.A. naturally Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Maybe the church should focus less on keeping people from marriage and more on keeping people in marraige.
Pretty much sums it up for me….
Reply
Cheekie Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:20 am
“Maybe the church should focus less on keeping people from marriage and more on keeping people in marraige.”
Word to yo motha, fatha, sista, brotha and third cousin first removed. Folks always throw out the “sanctit of marriage” card, but hasn’t divorce already pissed on said “sanctity”?
Reply
Seattle Washington Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:24 am
…More times than R. Kelly, drunken frat boys and that little kid from Adam Sandler’s “Big Daddy” combined.
Reply
Peyso Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:43 am
That lil kid was peeing machine….
Reply
Cheekie Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
lmfao @ the little kid in “Big Daddy”. Good ref.
Reply
We have had some good conversations about this topic in the past year and a half.
I’m confident gay people will eventually be giving the right to marriage, due to the overwhelming support from our age group. Old people (and scary people) just have a hard time accepting the fact that their time has past.
Is this not a free country? If we are going to let one religion dominate what everyone else does, we might as well let the Taliban take over and cover all our video hoes in Burqas
Peyso said it best “I don’t believe in Gay Marriage… So I won’t marry a man” To paraphrase Jay-z: what you suck won’t make me gag. I don’t even have respect for people who are against gay marriage, atleast not civic respect. Just b/c you do it in the name of Jesus, doesn’t make you righteous. I be honest, I’m not even sure Jesus would agree with you. When did that nigga
walk around trying to change laws and influence politics to get his point across??!?! What book was that in? He may have tried to influence Ceasar’s people, he never interfered with Ceasar’s law.
Reply
The Award Winning RightCoastLexSteele, Raggamuffin Extraordinaire Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Dat n*gga Jesus….lol
Btw Cheekz, got my hands on some 15 yr old Babancourt…I must say, very good stuff my friend. Not that you make it or anything, but I’ll let you take credit.
Reply
CHeeKZ Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 8:44 am
CHURCH!
Reply
It’s a civil rights issue. Period. They should have the same rights as the rest of us. Black folks, were denied their rights for many years based off of some racist mess. Let them get married if they want and let God deal with the rest as He sees fit….
Reply
I find it quite hilarious that the same people who were denied civil rights not too long ago are some of the most vocal about gay marriage. Not to say White people get a free pass, but c’mon – it hasn’t been that long ago since we couldn’t vote, marry or even sit at the front of the bus.
How quick we forget.
Nonetheless, heterosexuals of any race can’t seem to get marriage right lately, why should we deny homosexuals their shot?
Reply
Gay Marriage should definitely be a civil issue instead of a religious issue. The government just likes to hide behind the church when it’s convenient. Gay people are paying taxes just like everyone else so I don’t think the state has any reason to deny them the right to be legally married. I remember Obama denouncing gay marriage in one of his debates and I was very disappointed. I have had gay friends since about the 8th grade, I think that goes to show it’s not a choice, it’s just the way you are born.
I am not going to act like I’m a saint, because I really don’t believe in a “Christian Gay Marriage”, but I also don’t believe in a “Justice of the peace marriage” between heterosexual couples, I believe marriage is a religious covenant and as far as I am concerned some judge cannot perform such a ceremony. That being said I guess I have 2 definition of Marriage, one that is religious base and one that is based on the law. If you get married in a church without filing with the State, that’s not a legal marriage. If you get married by the state, there is really nothing the church can do about it. It just goes to show that the ultimate decision is within the state and not the church. I’ve heard that law makers are afraid of some backlash where platonic friends will be marrying each other left and right to take advantage of health benefits and what not.
Reply
CHeeKZ Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:22 am
“remember Obama denouncing gay marriage in one of his debates and I was very disappointed.”
Obama sold out gays and pro-choice people through out the campaign and through his first year. And he is going to continue to do so until atleast 2012. Let’s be real… who else are they going to vote for? Play the middle until you don’t need the vote anymore. After that… go left.
Reply
Renee Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Right! I almost forgot about the pro-choice thing. Politics is always about choosing the lesser of two evils, but I don’t think he even tried to side step those issues, his opinion was obvious to me.
Reply
This is definitely a civil issue. I can understand why some religious folks don’t agree with homosexuality, but the gay marriage is not a religious issue. It’s a civic issue. Most states are holding on to very archaic laws based on old prejudices and ignorance. In NC, you are allowed to marry your first cousin, but not someone of the same sex. smh….
Marriage is a civil right. Atheists and other non-Christians get married all of the time, and the church doesn’t come out to prevent them from marrying based on religious doctrine. I’ve never heard anyone boycott atheist marriage saying they are all going to hell if they don’t accept Jesus as Lord and savior. If people did that, we would think they were ridiculous….
Reply
Brian Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Co-sign
Reply
This is a silly question.
Does the church decide whether or not you can drive a car? Well then it shouldn’t decide ANYTHING on gay marriage. What do the two have in common?
A license!
You can get married by a bishop, minister or priest in a church, temple or under a waterfall. Hell if you’re in international waters, a freakin ship captain can marry you. But none of it is legit until you have a piece of paper from the government.
So ummm… what’s that got to do with the church?
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Is it really that silly of a question when the reasons people are so up in arms about gay marriage usually stem from religious reasoning?
Reply
MeteorMan Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Its about people and how comfortable they feel… People we just as up in arms when it made them uncomfortable to have black children in the same class as their white children… it’s sad really… People WILL get over it…
Reply
Seattle Washington Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
To further Ms. Jenkin’s point, a lot of the politicians against gay marriage are pandering to their religious constituents and using “Christian” reasoning when talking about the issue. I don’t remember any politician saying gay marriage would effect taxes, legislature, procedure, etc.
While the scenario you’re proposing is quite black and white, the actual reality of church intersecting with state is a lot more tangled and grey.
Reply
BLaCk Bruce WaYnE Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
This is why I feel being a theo-conservative person in politics is basically going against the whole ideals of the separation of Church and State. I think someone in the earlier posts mentioned that politicians like to hide behind the bible when it comes to situations like this which is very true.
We know kids can’t pray in school and you can’t say the Our Father right before your child eats lunch in the school cafe. I think the line in the sand needs to be drawn when it comes to marriage in the church. Like JR mentioned, a sea captain can marry to individuals.
At the end of the day I don’t see what the major deal is from a civil perspective. All the government has to do is adjust the standards of civil unions and I think this becomes less of an issue. I won’t go into my beliefs when it comes to gay marriage in the church but from a state/civil perspective I really don’t understand how complicated this needs to be?
Reply
The Award Winning RightCoastLexSteele, Raggamuffin Extraordinaire Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Bruce, the job of the government is to complicate things. Just pay your taxes, dude.
Reply
First let me say that nothing in this world shoud be left up to the church to decide. These are poeple that will go out of their way to condmn any and everyone to hell if they disagree with any and everything they say…If it were up to the church to rule the world more than half of us wouldn’t exist, why because more than half of us exist due to pre marital (non-marital) sex…Plus I don’t trust anyone who would give more ‘advice’ than they take. I have never met a Christian that held to the rule of the bible. Everytime I step into a church (which is uber rare) I see women in positions that the bible says are wrong, to include preching the word of God.
I also don’t think there should be rules to bonding. By that I mean to say that no matter what a situation consist of between two people, it should be between those two people. no matter what their sexual preference may be. Hell if best friends want to make a commitment to each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?
Saintity of marriage…is that like the tooth fairy or santa claus…some sort of childhood belief that some adults just can’t seem to shake? I think People like Elizabeth Taylor (married aprox 7 times) and Britney Spears (married aprox 7 hours) have long put to rest the myth of marriage holding saintly powers. I can tell you that I know more gay couples that have been together a hell of a lot longer than married couples. Gay people are going to be together no matter what so why not extend to them the same right that straight people take for granted every time they sign a pre-nup or walk into a divorce court? Not to mention the govn’t officials, who have the power to rule in favor of gay marrige, that cheat on their spouses with little boys and hired hookers…go figure the Saintity of marriage. LOL
Reply
I was 100% against gay anything, including marriage, until I went to law school. Then all of sudden it hit me like a ton of bricks that the whole seperation of church & state kinda matters. People are allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs they like and churches should be allowed to do whatever they like within the church…but when it comes to govt, or the state, making decisions based on religion then we have a problem. I don’t see how a government can justify allowing one thing for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals without people screaming discrimination. Maybe in countries where the religion is intertwined w/ the govt such things can be done, but in America I think it is ridiculous for anyone to justify denying gay marriages from the state.
Reply
Yes, gay people are people, too and should be able to screw who they wanna screw (no Dr. Suess). But reading through these comments, I think we have left out some valuable points…
Let’s ask ourselves which came first, the chicken or the egg. What was “marriage” before religion? Did people need a marriage license back before religion introduced the concept of one man and one woman, or did the government find a way to capitalize on a religious tradition (as always)? Because if the chicken (religion) came first, then perhaps it does have a place in this argument. Religious code has shaped the laws and practices of this nation for centuries; what makes this so different? On the other hand, IF a church recognizes a civil union between two people of the same sex, shouldn’t the government? And what about people who profess no religion?
Which brings me to my second point: if people should be able to marry whomever they want as long as they’re not forced, where do we draw the line? No, I’m not talking about animals and children (like most Bible huggers do). But say… polygamy? Since Big Love Season 4 premiered last night (woohoo), this topic is at the forefront of my mind. The government does not allow traditional Mormons to wed multiple women, and even if they were to, they only recognize the one that is certified in court. So if a man’s second or third wife were to have medical or legal issues, they don’t have the same rights as he and his first wife. In essence, the plural marriages are treated similarly as gay marriages. But these people (not always, but sometimes) enter into these unions on their own freewill. You can’t help whom(s) you fall in love with, right? But if the government didn’t step in and regulate the traditions practiced by THEIR religion, polygamy might still be legal and recognized by the state. So sometimes, church and state are not so separate, and that’s not always a bad thing.
All I’m trying to say is, if you want it one way, you really do have to open up the doors to a lot of other things. If religion shouldn’t get involved in government policies and law-making, then the government can’t get involved in religious traditions and practices.
I hope my favorite brother can marry his skinny white man some day if that’s what he so chooses. But am I kinda afraid of who will be the next group demanding marital rights to be recognized by the government? (polygamy, incest, etc.)… yeah, maybe a little. It’s none of my business who someone ELSE marries, but I do think we gotta draw the line somewhere. I dunno…
Reply
InsomniaPoet Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I think the difference is that this issue is not being shaped by religion it is being decided based SOLELY on religion. I can’t think of one secular reason for prohibiting gay marriage. Which brings me to your second point. While polygamy & incest may seem equivalent to gay marraige they are not. Both would still be able to be outlawed even if gay marriage was allowed. Gay people would not be allowed to have multiple husbands/wives and they wouldn’t be able to marry their close relatives. So thinking that by allowing gay marriage you are opening the floodgates for every other possible marriage is not really logical. Also, there are various secular arguments for prohibitng both polygamy & incest while I still cannot think of one for prohibiting gay marriage.
Reply
Joey loves God and the gays Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
But you can say the same thing about polygamous and incestual marriages, too. I can say polygamy is okay as long as you don’t marry your cousin or someone of the same sex, the same way I can say we should be allowed to marry our first cousin, as long as it’s not a polygamous or gay union. Just because you can flip it doesn’t mean it’s any more reasonable.
I just saw a 20/20 segment of a pair of first cousins that are married, in love, and obliviously happy with able bodied children for 20 years. And as much as I shuttered at the thought, I mean I had the same idea… What IS the secular reason for not allowing incestual marriages? If it’s based on the fact that children have a higher chance of mental or physical disabilities, then we ought to limit the age that women can marry or procreate, too, because older parents also make for higher risks of birth defects. And we should also keep people with physical/mental disabilities from marrying each other because that would quadruple the chances of the children turning out disabled.
As far as plural marriages, I can’t really think of a secular reason why that’s not acceptable either… no more than gay marriages. In essence, this religious idea of “one man and one woman” has driven polygamy from being legal as well. There aren’t even repercussions with child risks (like with incest) that I can think of related to plural marriage. Other than religions forcing young woman to marry old men (which can be regulated just the same), I would be interested in the “secular” reasons for prohibiting polygamy.
Reply
InsomniaPoet Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I could see secular arguments against polygamy related to benefits, taxes, etc. How do 6 people file married? Or if the husband dies how do we split social security benefits? Would it be divided equally between all spouses or would it go to the first wife with the idea she would then divide it up between the remaining? Which of the wives makes healthcare decisions, for example pulling the plug donating organs etc. Do they all get an equal vote & majority wins? what if there are an equal number of wives? etc etc etc
As for incest I believe there can be an argument that those relationships are immoral (which is not the same as unnatural, or a religious argument) and will not be tolerated by our society. Also, if you disregard the birth defects argument I am sure some sociologist etc. will say that there is concern for children who are cousins & siblings and how that affects the development of those children. Just because 20/20 featured a case of where it worked doesn’t mean we can’t find cases where it doesn’t work. Either way, while I can think of all these various arguments against polygamy & incestual relationship I still can’t think of any secular reason to deny two people of the same sex the right to marry.
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I do think a blanket right to same-sex marriage creates the potential for a slippery slop. But the law has been slick before and I’m sure it will remain slick and prevent men from marrying animals or their sisters. *shutters at the thought of a man walking to the alter with his horse*
Reply
InsomniaPoet Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
MissJenkins, how do you think it creates a slippery slope to change the wording from a man & a woman to two people? I think that still prohibits keeps things pretty clear.
Reply
Joey loves God and the gays Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
first cousins are 2 people… we don’t have to go extreme with it (siblings), but first cousins is illegal in most states, while other states recognize it as a legitimate union. So while you shutter at that, think of your reasons for it, and whether those same reasons might apply to gay marraige (ie. it’s “wrong” or it’s “not natural”).
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
I shutter because the idea of a man wanting to marry his horse is weird. But maybe he too likes big thangs, so who knows.
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
“two people” is way too vague of a statement. If the law isn’t explicitly spelled out, people will make all kinds of arguments as to how or why they fit into its protections.
Reply
InsomniaPoet Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Who would try and squeeze into this definition? I am really curious. I can’t imgaine who else is left to discriminate against, with regards to marriage, once homosexuals are given the right…
Reply
CHeeKZ Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I have to disagree in a big way.
To answer your question.. it was the egg.
There is no reason to give the concept of marriage as a religious event. Its actually a natural event. Its in our instinct to want to pair, penguins and monkeys do it too.
Religion isn’t a common element to all marriages. In African tribes and Western China marriage is a contract. Across time marriages have been used to stop wars and unite tribes. They are legal unions enforced by government and/or society. We gotta be careful not to think strictly Christian, America is bigger than that.
And this isn’t a Christian country, its a county where the majority of people are christian. It wasn’t founded on Christian beliefs and a large number of founding fathers weren’t christians.
Also Legislatures are allowed to pass laws to discourage practices, incest was shown to led to child molestation. And polygamy leads to human trafficking (or so the reasoning says). That is why those two are banned. But nothing bad comes from gay men… they have actually been shown to be better citizens than straight people.
Reply
“At one time (and almost still in Louisiana), governments had all kinds of reasons for not letting Black folk and White folk get married. I’m not saying that the struggle for gay rights and racial rights are the same. However, like with interracial marriage at one point, governments are picking and choosing who gets to exercise what civil rights. Because this issue seems to be grounded in the church, this type of control seems more permissible.”
This is how I feel personally. I mean, I dislike when folks play Oppression Olympics and compare racial and gay rights as if they’re the exact same struggle when it’s not — and frankly, saying so is a disservice to both struggles — but, as someone who is discriminated against, I wouldn’t want to discriminate against someone else.
Separation of church and state should definitely be upheld when it comes to gay marriage. It’s discrimination, plain and simple. We may live in a “Christian” government, but we don’t ban other religions and beliefs from living here, right? Why should the Christian-dominated belief extend to marriage if it doesn’t extend to anything else legally?
Frankly, it’s bullsh*t and I can’t believe this “law” has lasted so long.
Reply
Do I believe being gay is a choice? As of right now, until I see something proven and not a theory, yes. Do I believe being gay is a sin? Yep. Does being a sinner preclude you from enjoying certain civil liberties? Yep. Is marriage one of them? NOPE. The thing is that, even speaking religiously, we’re all sinners. I’m a fornicator, she’s jealous, he’s a liar but we’re allowed to get married, so I think gay people should get married too. Every single one of my friends are a sinner, including me. I still hang out w/ the liar and the jealous person and the one who doesnt respect their mom, so why wouldnt I hang out w/ the gay guy. It seems like people want to rank sins from not so bad sins to really bad sins and ppl forget that we are not in a position to do that.
Secondly, many Christians forget that there are people in USA who are not Christians. Preventing someone from marrying based on a tenet of the religion is by proxy forcing them to subscribe to your religion. And I dont think anyone should be forced to any religion, mine included.
So all in all, Gay Marriage is a civil issue because everyone has the ability to choose their own marriage.
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“Does being a sinner preclude you from enjoying certain civil liberties? Yep.”
Just curious: what kinds of sins should preclude people from enjoy which civil liberties?
Reply
Peyso Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Murdering ppl sends you to jail where you cant vote or walk around freely.
Lying to ppl (in certain instances) sends you to jail.
Parents not honoring their children sends you to jail.
Just name a few quickly off the top
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
oh. You said “being a sinner,” not committing a sin. Cuz I’m a sinner and I’m not in jail. I was getting worried that feds would be looking for me…again.
Reply
Cheekie Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“Do I believe being gay is a choice? As of right now, until I see something proven and not a theory, yes.”
Just curious, do you also believe heterosexuality is a choice?
Reply
Peyso Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I believe ppl are born heterosexual and choose to be otherwise. I respect their decision though.
Reply
Cheekie Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Ok, cool. I don’t agree, but just wanted to see if your perspective is different. I never came across someone who thought both were choices so I was just curious.
Reply
and1grad Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“Do I believe being gay is a choice? As of right now, until I see something proven and not a theory, yes.”
I think this is an important part of this argument. Unless proven otherwise, being gay will always be considered a choice. And if you’re being honest with yourself, the whole “would I choose to have a harder life” argument is weak and nonsensical. We all make decisions that make our respective lives more difficult. Its a meaningless statement. But bc there isnt some concrete biological/genetic link to homosexuality (as opposed to that of race), you cant use one as a direct link to why the other should be allowed. Also, when it came to interracial marriage, you werent having to make any fundamental change to the ideology of marriage itself.
Personally, I think there is ZERO chance of the definition of “marriage” being altered. But I DO think that you can make significant changes to “civil unions” such that it achieves the recognition gay people want/deserve.
Reply
and1grad Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I forgot to add that the perception of homosexuality as a choice also pushes the argument beyond religion. Now you’re into parents being afraid of their children becoming gay. They’re asking…how is homosexuality addressed in schools? As long as questions like these arent adequately addressed, it wont be just the religious stalwarts that vote down gay marriage.
Reply
MeteorMan Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“Now you’re into parents being afraid of their children becoming gay.”
This is an important statement, it implies the social taboo of homosexuality. Parents literally afraid… Just like some parents were and still are, afraid for their children to date people of other races. That’s an issue that has to be worked out within a family. We need not to bother ourselves on how people within families take it. Feelings will be hurt, but people will get over those feelings OR hurt their children like they have already been doing…
“They’re asking…how is homosexuality addressed in schools?”
I agree. But just as heterosexuality has it’s own taboos even when it came to sexual education, just throw homosexuality in the mix. The consequences aren’t dire at all…
Reply
and1grad Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
For the most part, I agree. Except about the issue staying in house. That is apparently what they tried with the last go round and it didnt and wont work. It still needs to be addressed…in a convincing manner…or else it just wont pass. Give the people SOMETHING to ease their minds…or at least let them know you’re addressing their concerns.
Reply
MeteorMan Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“Give the people SOMETHING to ease their minds…”
Ease their minds from???? We want to have people just swallow the pill and be done but ease them without reinforcing their prejudices/fears.
Parent: “I’m worried that my child will consider homosexuality as an option now. I don’t want my child to become one of THEM.”
Gov’t: “We understand maam. We’re looking into it…”
ummm???? lol
Reply
and1grad Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
LMAO!!
Reply
P.S. This is a great dialogue.
Reply
I am Christian and i don’t really believe in same sex marriage, but on the same note I also believe that “love rejoices in the truth.” Ultimately, I want to live in a state where the laws of the government reflect the culture/beliefs of the people. If many people in the United States believe that homosexuality is okay, then the government laws should reflect that. Anything less would be deceptive. I would prefer to know exactly what something is and isn’t than be confused about where it stands. In the same regard, if America is a country that believes in same sex unions, then so be it. What I don’t want is to live in a country that portrays itself in one way for face value, but in reality is composed of people who live in contrast to that portrayal.
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Do you think America portrays itself one way and then practices something else?
Reply
MeteorMan Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
“Ultimately, I want to live in a state where the laws of the government reflect the culture/beliefs of the people.”
I’m really sorry but this statement makes exactly ZERO sense given that culturally/racially/spiritually the US is a patch-work quilt. Isn’t that supposed to be one of the decent features of this state? Country is not a ‘nation state’… And to wish for that would demonstrate that you’re willing to surrender the uniqueness of your chosen culture and/or spirituality for the sake of uniformity. If you want to do that then great, but I’m sure that you don’t. That’s what makes that statement kinda like… fluff…
You’re saying that its ok as long as America as a whole or “many people in the United States” agree to the same belief? So is that the majority? So the majority belief system should dictate the laws of the land? So you really don’t agree with equal representation? Like isn’t the laws suppose to be an ABTRACTION of ALL the people of the Land, not just “many” or the majority?
“Anything less would be deceptive. I would prefer to know exactly what something is and isn’t than be confused about where it stands.”
It’s so easy to apply personification to a Country. But it makes very little sense in this case where people believe different things. People believing different things within the same country create confusion for you? wow
Reply
good points..I’m surprised most of you are more open w the idea of gay marriage…that makes me happy.
I am cool with ANYTHING as long as no one is getting hurt or manipulated or bamboozled or jacked up.
I’m not a big fan of “marriage” as we define it because it doesn’t make sense.
In a traditional sense, you are suppose to marry someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. you dont need to govt to get involved with you dedicating your life to someone (again who isn’t being manipulated, forced, coerced or conned)..PERIOD…
In the civil, legal sense, it just means yall can file taxes together and get benefits together blah blah blah .
Why can’t you just do that with your best friend, or line sister, or cousin if you wanted to without being in love or without it being someone you are supposed to have a romantic relationship with? Seriously, why can’t me and my best friend get benefits together and tax breaks? We live in the same house?
Getting more benefits and tax breaks because you decide to create a union with another person of the opposite sex or who you are romantically involved with is not fair to those of us who are hard working tax paying citizens who choose NOT to be legally bound to someone:-/
“Marriage” is just another way the govt is trying to control how people live their lives. Creating benefits and setting up laws and rules to get people to live a certain way is just controlling.
The government including themselves in any type of romantic love again..DOESNT MAKE SENSE (unless of course they are hurting someone, forcing someone, coercing someone, conning someone or brainwashing someone)
Okay..there is my comment on the matter..and I know yall gon be like “this heffa crazy”..but again..Im not a surface thinker
oh..and like another poster said..if gay marriage can be legal, why not polygamy? Might as well let every willing party who wants to be married do it and get the same benefits as that man and wife who HATE EACHOTHER!! *long as no one is getting hurt*
True
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
“Getting more benefits and tax breaks because you decide to create a union with another person of the opposite sex or who you are romantically involved with is not fair to those of us who are hard working tax paying citizens who choose NOT to be legally bound to someone:-/”
Key words: decide and choose. How is it not fair when you make the decision not to be legally bound? I would think fairness is more of an issue if you CAN’T do something. If you and your best friend are a man and woman respectively, yall can CHOOSE to get married and get the benefits, whether or not you love each other, etc. That’s like saying its not fair that you can’t drive legally if you choose not to have a license…
Reply
now I gotta go make a post on why I think marriage is a trick by the govt..LMFAO
Reply
To me this is not a religious or civil issue. It’s nothing but word games+fear.
Yes, Gay MARRIAGE should be called MARRIAGE. Yes, I will probably piss some people off. Yes, I am a jackass in reference to issues like these. Yes, you are correct that I don’t give a fack. Yes, I lack a patience to come up with a great argument just to say that all this ish is beyond stupid. Let’s begin…
If you’re fighting against Gay Marriage, you sir or maam are an idiot->period. But you don’t have to be an idiot your whole life so I will tell you why.
Love is defined by who every experiences it. So “Love” to Sam may include a god but for Billy over here, it may not. In lieu of this fact, you are allowed to love whoever you want to love. However, if a homosexual couple say they want to marry, its suddenly infringing on your right to… think the world is exactly how you dreamt it up to be???? It doesn’t infringe on what you believe since you choose to believe what you want regardless of ‘Law of the Land.’ It doesn’t force any religious group to incorporate the ideas of homosexuality into their own, but it does force the state to respect the beliefs of others in reference to marriage. Land of the Free?? And if practicing their beliefs has them sharing a word with you SO WHAT? People want to own the word, and they feel that allowing Gays to say “marriage” is striping them of their God given right to… ummm… Think that it’s a sin for same sex people to have sex???? Well, you always thought that… So nothing changes there… People are afraid of the unknown. People are just fearful and are playing word games… Let’s not try to appeal to every person’s feelings since them hoes change 100 times a day AT LEAST.
I can’t even come up with a graceful argument concerning this… This is so BASIC. All I have to say is that there’s a reason why YOUR God gave ME a backhand… The better to slap you with…
The government doesn’t have a religion, neither does God. You can’t tell either how to judge other’s belief systems. Assholes…
Now you definitely CAN’T have to government forcing random churches to perform homosexual marriages. The government has to allow for the creation and enforce the protection of facilities used for homosexual marriages. Civilly, who cares (no one since the government doesn’t have feelings)?!?! The government really doesn’t know the difference. Social Security #’s are just numbers and names are names, pictures are pictures. The problem is that its taking a huge social double-take for people get over the fact that homosexuality is something that will always exist around you, kinda like black people…
And Black people who want to fight as all get out against Gay “marriage,” STFU. You’re not helping, so just STFU. Shameful… Disgusting… This is why YOU lack identity… YEAH I SAID IT. YES IT’S RELATED. Ask me ‘how’ if you care to know…
Sorry 3ways. I just don’t like flat out stupid people. Like why do we have to explain this shit??!?!?! It really grinds my gears… At times like these, I wish I ruled with a iron fist. I’ll make gay MARRIAGE happen so quickly and people will get over it… That is all.
Reply
Miss Jenkins Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
* applauds her e-boo*
Reply
gay marriage is a civil right not a religious issue because i’m not gay or married so it really has nothing to do with me. if a gay couple can find a pastor/preacher/rabbi/imam to bless your marriage before God then who am i to tell you any different. people need to worry about their own salvation because none of us are without sin. i’m wary of people who are so quick to judge.
Reply
I think it’s more a civil issue, and it should be allowed. Gay people should have the right to be as miserable as anyone else.
Reply
This entire debate is mind boggling to me, since same-sex marriage has been legal up here for awhile. I believe that Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If left to the churches world war 3, 4 & 5 would errupt.
More than anything, I see it as an opportunity for the government to suck even more money out of the common man’s pocket. More govt workers will be needed to process the liscencing etc. The same-sex wedding industry would boom ten fold….
Reply
If gays are given the right to marry–they’ll see it’s not all that it’s cracked up to be. Let them go through the dividing of property, custody, etc that comes with divorce…because there will be a lot of gays divorces just like heterosexuals.
Reply
This is always such an interesting issue to debate. This may sound terrible but I don’t really have an opinion about whether or not homosexuals should be permitted to marry. If they’re granted the right cool if not cool. I am a debater and I can argue the affirmative or negative on 9 out of 10 issues. My only opinion on the matter is if it is going to be decided this is a states rights issue and not one for the federal government to take on.
As for the people that say b/c i’m a minority I should be pro gay rights it truly is annoying. Why b/c my people’s civil rights were denied until about 50 some years ago? My problem with that is homosexuality is defined by an act and an attraction. A person’s sexuality is not known just by looking at them. Not to say that a gay person should have to be closeted but if you’re gay you can blend into mainstream society and have every right your heart desires. Minorities were denied their rights b/c of their race/ethnicity. You can not change your ethnicity by altering your behavior, dressing differently, or changing who you are attracted to. If you’re white you’re white, if you’re hispanic you’re hispanic etc… Nothing changes your race/ethnicity.
Reply
SassyNoLA Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
you’ve either willfully ignored the point that many are making or you don’t get it. the civil rights movement taught us the danger of allows majority populations to vote on minority populations’ civil rights. it has nothing to with supporting or not supporting gay rights. it’s about acknowledging the danger in supporting denial of rights. it has nothing to do with oppression-loyalty. i don’t personally support abortion, but as a functioning, thinking adult, i do see the danger in criminalizing abortions and subsequent consequences. consequences of supporting exclusion of rights is what people are talking about, not thinking as a minority monolith. ugh.
Reply