Gay Junk and Stuff

[J^2]

Originally Posted by Jon Dahl

One of my friends on the Facebooks posted:

"Gay marriage is wrong!
Don't be fooled into believing a lie.
That's all."


Yes, he's a Kansan, and no he's not a Phelps cult member. It spurred quite the online flame-war with his then 700 friends... Not down to about 650 or so.

Do you know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion on Facebook about gay marriage with closed minded bigots?

On DW we only have one or two closed minded bigots that may or may not post on a monthly basis. But hundreds of them storming a single status update was mind boggling.

When homosexuals start to lament and protest the disaster that my love life is I'll return the sentiment for their discrimination...

[Biofungus]

Ironically, if you go by the original non-religion basis for marriage, our ancestors would be facepalming and going, "Why didn't I think of that? It's brilliant!" (land/property/influence expansion. Since all that stuff "transfers" to the first born son, imagine two first born sons getting married).

[AthenaRose]

Originally Posted by JennaP

It's not a done deal. Every time it goes to a referendum, we get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If we're lucky it doesn't also ban domestic partnerships or ANY marriage-like benefits. The one in Virginia doesn't even allow 'contracts that give any of the benefits of marriage' - which could be applied to a gay couple trying to adopt together, for example.

It's coming, but there are still too many people easily energized against it for the fight to be easy. Many of them fear that their church will be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies if they're allowed at the secular level, leading me to feel that whatever legislation or amendments are passed should include language protecting churches and clergy from being forced to perform 'any marriage ceremony that is against the principles of their religion'.

Hello, Jenna! Welcome to DW

And now for my point. The problem with churches being able to refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples is that it's discrimination. Just like Church of England congregations who can refuse to have a woman priest. There is a special dispensation from general employment law that allows this but it is still wrong.

The principles of Christianity are to be Christ-like - to show love, understanding, compassion, etc, etc for all people. And most especially to show that for people who are discriminated against.

[Troy Wall]

I'm always in support of some girl on girl action.

[CHWolf]

What if it's Edith Bunker and Lady Gaga?

[Troy Wall]

Originally Posted by CHWolf

What if it's Edith Bunker and Lady Gaga?

Hold on, let me google the first name.

[Troy Wall]

No...no I can't say I'd be in support of such a union.

[jedipencil]

You had to google Edith Bunker? Oh my.

[The Dag]

Originally Posted by CHWolf

What if it's Edith Bunker and Lady Gaga?

i'm all for that.

[Jon Dahl]

Originally Posted by J^2

When homosexuals start to lament and protest the disaster that my love life is I'll return the sentiment for their discrimination...

Your disaster of a love life is your own fault.

[Ron Phillips]

Troy isn't that young, don't let him fool you. He just didn't read it the the way Archie pronounces it "Eedit" Never with the 'h'.

Of course I still remember when Sammy Davis Junior (as George Jefferson's brother) gave Archie a kiss on the lips.

[Aaron Walther]

Originally Posted by AthenaRose

And now for my point. The problem with churches being able to refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples is that it's discrimination. Just like Church of England congregations who can refuse to have a woman priest. There is a special dispensation from general employment law that allows this but it is still wrong.

The principles of Christianity are to be Christ-like - to show love, understanding, compassion, etc, etc for all people. And most especially to show that for people who are discriminated against.

Forcing Churches to go against the tenants of their religion is also discrimination. Ultimately, churches are afraid of same sex marriage because they fear they will be forced by the government to go against their religious beliefs, which directly contradicts the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Well, that and the fact that they see themselves as moral protectors of society, but that argument doesn't have any legal weight, the freedom of religion argument does.

The whole situation is ridiculous and the answer is simple. It is not the Church's discrimination we should be worried about. It is the government's discrimination that should be the target of our protests. The government should be legally allowed to give out marriage licenses without religion involved in any way. If atheists are allowed to be married, then certainly homosexuals can too. Once the government is forced to stop discriminating, you will find churches willing to "revise" their beliefs and tenants in order to keep up with society.

Any religion has the right to refuse marriage to anybody for any reason, just as you have the right not to join any religion.

[J^2]

Originally Posted by Jon Dahl

Your disaster of a love life is your own fault.

I should marry myself...

[CHWolf]

Originally Posted by Aaron Walther

[...]

Bullet points:

1.) I'm not aware of any movement to force all Churches to perform gay marriages. I think it's more a matter of allowing same-sex marriages to EXIST AT ALL. You're coming at this (lol) from the position of "we can't force Churches to do this" - while the real issue at hand is state Government and DOMA forcing pro-gay-marriage Churches not to.

Do you know of any Church that is currently "forced" to marry ANYone?


2.) Requiring a Church 'go against its tenants' is not discrimination... even if that's what was happening, which it isn't. I'm not sure how the word 'discrimination' could be effectively contorted to make that point.


3.) The first amendment gives you freedom of religion, but it doesn't give you the right to commit illegal activities, do harm to others, etc.

Just like it gives you freedom of speech but not slander, freedom of the press but not libel, so on and so forth.

The first amendment doesn't mean zealots/bigots get to deny the rights of others.


4.) These bigots don't actually fear they'll have to go against their beliefs - many beliefs have fallen by the wayside over time as they were disallowed by modern civilization and its governance. Marriage between people of two different faiths was long disallowed, you know... I could go on, but this misconception is already dead in the water.

And, hey, the folks running a Church can decide not to marry inter-faith couples... yet it's not illegal for them to marry.




5.) The Governmen is NOT allowed to give out marriage licenses to same-sex couples at this time. That's because religious zealots have ATTACKED THIS COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT AND THE FREEDOM OF ITS PEOPLE.

This isn't a fight the Government is taking to the church. It's a fight the Church is taking to the Government.

What's more... tolerance and freedom will win. Religious hatred always eventually falls under the wheels of progress, and it will again.



You seem to be on the side that says this will eventually come to pass (as per the end of your post), so kudos on that. It's just that some of the above mentioned points were a bit backward in who's forcing what on whom, and what the Gov is actually doing (or not doing) to others.

Originally Posted by Scribbly

Maybe gay couples should fight for more rights from Civil Unions than pretending to twist the arm of Institutions that not longer ago allowed and promoted torture and murder, ( Inquisition anyone?) in order to kept the power provided by their dogmas.

The problem is that while it seems to make sense to fight for 'more rights' from civil unions, it's pretty much identical to telling black U.S. citizens to try and see if they can get a few more rights w/Jim Crow, or telling women to try to see if they can possibly work toward being able to say who they want for President - but we won't call it voting and some places can decide not to allow it if they feel like it.

It's silly, and the whole arguement against abolishing 'seperate-but-equal' is based on nothing but bigotry.

It's also worth noting that we're not really just talking about one inquisition-lovin' religion here... really, same-sex couples can't get married anywhere - from a synagogue to a temple to the local court house.

It's just that the Pope is kind of the biggest drama queen of the bunch. Heh.

Marriage is a very important issue and no one, no matter their credence, age, gender, social position, nationality should have their rights banned from having it. IMHO.

[Scribbly]

There are other alternatives for marriage, as Civil Unions are.
Apparently, in the States, Civil Unions are giving less rights to married couples than "Church" marriages.

Maybe gay couples should fight for more rights from Civil Unions than pretending to twist the arm of anachronistic Institutions that not longer ago allowed and promoted torture and murder, ( Inquisition anyone?) in order to kept the power provided by their dogmas.

That’s the blessing that gay couples are looking for?
I believe gay people are smarter than that.
Marriage is a very important issue and no one, no matter his/her credence, age, gender, race, social position, nationality should have their rights banned from having it. IMHO.