"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization.."Is gay marriage worth killing people over? If the majority of the people in the country want to impose something over others, should they get it? At one time, the majority of voting Americans wanted slavery, and didn't want women's suffrage. At one time, the majority of Americans wanted Japanese Internment. Is gay marriage an example of history repeating itself? Discuss.
Posted in
Political,
Popular Posts,
Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
I haven't really thought this thru... so I'mma prolly get a lot of comments about it.
First off, I do not support gay marriage or gays in general. I strongly believe it is against my religion (christianity). However, that doesn't mean I condemn it. I just view it as any other sin that can be worked through. Therefore, I have no right to bring judgement against them. But I am privileged to help disciple with them and discuss with them my beliefs.
Now for gay marriage specifically. Marriage started between a husband and wife in christianity (well I guess its before christianity so Judaism). Marriage was basically a commitment between a man and women through God. So I do not see a reason for gay marriages... I mean if its for a legal reason to receive benefits (taxes and etc.) they should prolly have another option for homosexual couples wanting to be legal spouses. Other than that... why would they need God's "anointment" to be together. I do not see anything would change between their relationship other than the legal aspects.
yea.. those are my initial thoughts... i'll prolly have to comment again explaining somethin better. And prolly defend my explanation because I did somewhat ignore the fact that even atheists get married.... well I'll approach it when the time comes. =P
I see marriage as a basic human right. The laws of a religion should only apply to people who follow that religion, and should not be applied to everyone outside of that. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. But why should anyone else have to follow the rules of the religion you choose to follow? How would you feel if a Jewish person came up to you and ripped the pork chop out of your hands? Or if a Hindu ripped the hamburger out of your hands? No matter what your personal belief in invisible beings, you shouldn't be allowed to take away another human beings right to be happy.
1. Mr. Card is a douchebag.
2. No one has any right whatsoever to push their religious/cultural beliefs on anyone else. Last time I checked gays were human and they deserve basic human rights just like everyone else. We live in a society that is based on LAW, not religion. Those that oppose gay marriage are forgetting the golden rule. Plus, we all have bigger things to worry about than gays getting married.
EDIT: Plus, marriage is a civil right, I just do not understand why we are excluding those rights from others.
(Anyone know how to edit previous comments?)
Umm... Im saying the thing about marriage is... it itself originated from religion... so you can't really apply it in the same ways as other customs. (like everyone can have friends... the existence of friendship wasn't created by religion... not the best example but hopefully you understand what im getting at) Marriage involves a pastor or a priest to ask God to allow a couple to come together in a commitment deeper than a earthly relationship.
This is quite different from a legal "marriage". The last two comments seem to be talking about legal "marriage". A right to proclaim you have a relationship with another person, which is just a piece of paper with some signatures. You can be legally married without going through a marriage.
I do not see a need to stop legal marriage between homosexuals, because it is not religiously rooted. So hopefully you guys can understand my perspective.
I think this depends on the legal meaning of "marriage". I think a man and man or a woman and a woman can do whatever the heck they want. Religion should be out of the question here. Why does it matter what the bible says? To me the bible is a work of fiction, so it has as much weight as Lord of the Rings.
"Marriage started between a husband and wife in christianity." Good sentence, now leave religion out of the discussion here, can you tell the rest of christianity to leave gay people alone? You are are creating "us" and "them", "right" and "wrong" which causes conflict and even violence. THIS COUNTRY IS NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE, so don't use the bible to push around laws against gays. You can outcast people from your church, a priest can refuse to appear at the wedding, but you have no right to tell them its wrong. I'm not sure if a gay couple's union could be called a "marriage" that depends on what the word actually means, which is a huge debate itself. I take no side on this.
"Marriage involves a pastor or a priest to ask God to allow a couple to come together in a commitment deeper than a earthly relationship." No, it does not, maybe in Christianity, other religions might not say this.
I'm saying that religion shouldn't influence the laws we create for gays since this is not a religion based country.
... Hence I have nothing against a legal marriage...
I am saying marriage in a religious sense... (aka the true definition of marriage because it was created by religion)
so I guess not everyone understands my point of view... oh well
And i'd argue against the idea that the US isn't religiously based... cuz it largely is.
America is not Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16R4aeYBXww
Proposition 8 wasn't about marriages through the church. It was about legal marriages. The issue here is denying people human rights. Stop confusing human rights violations with religious issues.
Also, the belief that homosexuality is a sin puts me on edge. I feel that that is a bigoted outlook, even when underlined with something along the lines of "but I must live with it and respect them." The thought of religions, which are meant to preach love and respect, alienating certain groups of people because of something outside of their control (arguable - i know) is absurd.
In the future, please do not bring religion into a legal discussion. People get upset enough about lawyers. The inclusion of God complicates things even more. We live in a secuar society because it's easier to agree with all the different belief systems we have in this country.
"Stop confusing human rights violations with religious issues."
QFT
So we were talking about this in my political theory class, and I thought it was an interesting perspective. Clearly the argument that "a man and a women should be allowed to do whatever they want" doesn't really hold much water because people aren't allowed to do whatever they want (example, I cannot sell myself into slavery, no matter how beneficial such an arrangement would be to me). Those are laws. The argument about marriage being something to do with God doesn't fit in, because we have separation of church and state.
These are the questions we must answer: is having marriage only being between a man and a women fundamental to the preservation of our society? Would allowing homosexual marriages tend to its destruction? If the answer is no, then they should be allowed. If it is yet, then they shouldn't.
Personally, I think that it is not destructive to our concept of family, humanity, or society. I will give my reasoning by way of example. Often, vegetarian parents will produce vegetarian kids. Why? Because they grew up in a different kind of household, in which some sense they weren't given a choice. Does this affect them as moral human beings or inhibit them from functioning as members of society. No. I think that unlike vegetarian parents, homosexual parents will not restrict their children into becoming homosexuals. It is clear, then, in a household with the parents as homosexuals, who will not restrict their children's sexuality, will also be able to produce functioning members of society.
Maybe we should learn from the mistake of segregation, that "Separate But Equal" doesn't work. If you're a real social conservative, you solution should be:
Civil Unions for All, Marriages for None.
http://littlecog.com/2008/11/12/an-opinion-on-gay-marriage-rights/
QFT? Please define. Apparently I'm not 1337 enough.
he means "quoted for truth", or in other words, you made a good post and he agrees with you
he disagrees with you on the basis of quantum field theory according to wiki...and muahahaha....we got carter!!
I think it is getting to a point where the author is going to have set rules to these posts.
To future authors, please label your post under the tag "religion" if you are allowing religion to be brought into the discussion. Anyone support this?
I was giving my opinion on the subject in general. The original topic said discuss. So I gave my account of my mind process. I talked about how I do not support gay marriage in its true sense of the word. Then I went onto say I do not see anything wrong with legal "marriage" in its modern sense. So I do not see anything wrong with what I said. If I just said I do not see anything wrong with legal marriage between homosexuals... you wouldn't get the background of where the opinion came from.
Sorry for trying to help you guys understand my opinion on a deeper level.
On another note... I always do my best to be objective to any comments, opinions, or views before I give my own account, which would be very subjective. I think this is the only way to have a productive discussion. I would appreciate if everyone would try to do the same.
yo a.kim,
I really enjoyed your post actually, but I am kind of confused about the objective/subjective part. Could you explain that a lil more? And I think that it's great that we're coming at issues from all sides, it really introduces new ways of thinking, rather than just the same old arguments over and over. That's why I would really like to push racial, national and religious diversity here...although prereq is that they like to discuss these topics lol.
Joey
Umm... like discussions/arguments get really repetitive when people listen to other's opinion subjectively. Like lets say you, Joey, like apples immensely and I hated apples with upmost passion. Subjective listening would be while you were giving me your explanation about how great apples are... I'd be constantly thinking about how much I still hate apples. Thus, I would not listen to everything you were proposing very deeply and possibly just be ignoring you completely.
The reason I bring this up... is I never said I was against legal marriage. But some people heard my religious view on marriage and totally tuned out what I was saying. They assumed I was against it completely. This was far from the truth.
When people listen to other's opinion subjectively... the opinion can be misinterpreted by your own beliefs. That's why I do my best to listen to other people objectively before I give my opinion. It helps you to listen to others more intently and possibly help you realize something you did not before. But then again this is also an opinion.
PS... what does sophlightning stand for? is it like sophomore lightning? or is it from something? Jus wondering cuz the name is catching my attention
wow this topic has really sparked a lot of controversy...why don't we try discussion abortion after this O_O
lol I think abortion's not that interesting to discuss. It will divide us among pretty much the same lines, with the religious-morals people vs. the liberal laissez-faire with people's lives people. I have a good idea for an interesting topic though.
aborting what? and what's ur idea ktao?...Cuz I got one too!
Which pokemon is strongest? Discuss.
hey andrew,
I see what you are saying now and agree with you that objective, almost philosophical approaches to debate are the only way to really get anywhere. I actually also believe in making the small logical steps to an unknown conclusion to the reader. This way, they agree with you all the way to the end, whereby they discover themselves at a totally different position than what they had previously thought. Eliminates the skepticism and the disinterest :). Although I'm not saying I'm good at this system...I just believe in it haha.
My name actually did come from sophomore lightning. The history is that I started using aim in freshmen year in highschool...and trying to think of something clever I decided I would switch sn's every year. So first i was froshlightning...then got to sophlightning and quit. Junlightning didn't sound good. The lightning was cuz I liked to think I was fast at swimming.
Sounds like an Olbermann rant. ;)
Post a Comment