I'm all for gay marriage. I think that being gay isn't just a choice you can make, some people are born homosexual, and their phsycology is like that. Sometimes people choose to become gay, other times, they were like that from the beginning.
LadyTurtleToes is absolutely correct. For Christians, it's a matter of their sacred, religious institution being defiled. For homosexuals, it's a matter of social and economic equality. The solution is simple: Get government out of the marriage business, stop artificially propping up a religious sacrament as a status symbol or economic bargaining chip. It's win-win.
The institution that has since been translated into marriage was around for far longer then the religious use of it. If I remember correctly it developed back in Roman times as a legal agreement between two people that could take multiple forms (often such as modern pre-nups as so on). It was not originally a religious institution, so I don't see why it should have to be called such.
That said I can understand that in modern society there are different connotations surrounding the word itself, so if the government were to stop recognizing "marriages" and started to recognize "civil unions" for all people I would be fully behind it. Still, there's going to be a debate regardless, because in states that already allow civil unions to take place with the full benefits of marriage there are already movements to deny gays and lesbians those rights.
Marriage may not have started as a religious concept but religions have latched on to the term "marriage" to signify a union recognizable by a church. If it had remained only a legal arrangement then I wouldn't feel the way I do about it. Perhaps if a phased it this way it would make more sense: The government shouldn't recognize religious marriages, only marriages in the legal sense. But the double meaning of the word only makes it seem more confusing to me. I'm completely for gay marriage in the legal respect. I believe gay couples who want the benefits of marriage should be allowed to have them. In the religious sense it's not my place to argue, I don't believe in organized religion. I guess my ultimate point is that the government shouldn't care and they shouldn't deny couples (gay or striaght) that wishes to commit to a bond such as marriage or similiar to marriage (a civil union) the right to do so or the benefits it entails.
You can be married in a courthouse by a judge. That's not religious at all.
Just want to point out it's only a marriage because that's the term use for the legal benefits as well. I've heard people who are very religious go on about how marriages of that sort aren't recognized in the eyes of God and blah blah blah. Namely my boyfriend's mother who had a bird when we told her that if we get married the ceremony will be performed by a judge, she spent twenty minutes telling us that she would never allow such a thing and that we would have to be married in a catholic church because we wouldn't really be married otherwise. I found this particularly humorous because my boyfriend is an atheist and his mother knows it. This is part of what made me feel particularly fond of the idea of civil union, I feel now that I would rather do that than get "married".
I think it's probably against the first amendment, yeah, but who is in charge of checking whether or not we're breaking the laws? The judicial branch. And the judicial branch doesn't want gay/lesbian marriage, so that's how it is. Basically, when a governor or the president chooses between gay/lesbian marriage or keeping things the same, they're choosing between whether they want gays/lesbians to vote for them or if they want Christians to vote for them. The government cares because if they pass a law allowing gay/lesbian marriage, they will lose the Christian vote. You see what I'm saying?
I quote myself. And I have something to add. The government should stick their noses out of marriage. It's none of their business,and it's not their area to preside over. So I basically repeat everything I said before. Christianity and their "sacred marriage" should have no say in what the government decides, and the government should have no say in marriage. In both cases, that is not what happens. Christians don't technically have a say more than other citizens, but they get what they want most of the time because of the sheer number of Americans who are Christians. The government knows that if they piss one Christian off, they just lost about 10 million votes. And this is a free country, right? Although the Constitution is somewhat tainted. If you hadn't noticed, it kind of refers to women as lesser beings than men. But we have freedom of thought, religion, etc. why shouldn't we have freedom of marriage? But it all comes down to the Christian vote. I don't think we'll have gay marriage legalized anytime soon.
Although the Constitution is somewhat tainted. If you hadn't noticed, it kind of refers to women as lesser beings than men.
It's somewhat incredibly less tainted than most government foundations the world has seen, but fortunately the constitution doesn't take itself TOO seriously. Hence the 19th amendment, which was so entirely necessary.
But it all comes down to the Christian vote. I don't think we'll have gay marriage legalized anytime soon.
The Christian vote is definitely a huge player, but there's a general level of social unacceptance which only boils down to prejudice. The so-called "Defense of Marriage" act passed both the house and senate with overwhelming support. This is more than pandering to the Christian vote. This is pandering to fears of straight people who are simply ignorant.
I've been invited to big parties by people I would consider my friends. They have always treated me very well and enjoyed my company. Then I go to their parties, and if it comes up in discussion, they'll say, "Being gay is fine so long as I don't have to SEE that."
They don't want to see men or women actually being attracted to the same sex... because of what, some kind of "icky" factor? I don't know, but it hurts because I hear this from friends. And I know these are the same people who will later say, "Oh no I'm not being prejudiced, heck I got gay friends I'm fine with them, I just think gay marriage is wrong."
It's prejudice, it's just not overt enough to disrupt otherwise friendly relations. True social change comes through peace, so when I'm at the party and I hear people say that, I suck it up. I'm just here to set an example. Anyways, you're right. Things won't be equal anytime soon at this rate. Sigh.
Not anytime soon, but I'm confident that in the end it will be equal. In most cases, the people working for equality and freedom get their way, even if it takes hundreds of years.
Depressing thought that it might take that long for people to stop worrying about something so petty as whether this person is attracted to males or females, though.
LadyTurtleToes is absolutely correct. For Christians, it's a matter of their sacred, religious institution being defiled. For homosexuals, it's a matter of social and economic equality. The solution is simple: Get government out of the marriage business, stop artificially propping up a religious sacrament as a status symbol or economic bargaining chip. It's win-win.
The government adds legitimacy to the marriage. Legal documents are proof that you are married to another person. Without the government, I could say I'm married to my dog and you couldn't disprove me
Christianity and their "sacred marriage" should have no say in what the government decides,
*cough cough* I'm sorry. Isn't America a Democracy? Every American Citizen has a say in voting (at least, to a certain extent).
Why does the government care about gay marriage? I'd say because America was started mainly on Christian Principles. And while the constitution doesn't show partiality to any specific religion, it is written by people who are Christian, and their moral beliefs are expressed in the Constitution. In the future, there may be gay marriage. With enough gay activists (if that's the proper term) and if, perhaps, the Christian Church dwindled, gay marriage would most likely become reality (as it has in some states already). But the process will most likely be gradual.
And while the constitution doesn't show partiality to any specific religion, it is written by people who are Christian
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Gouverneur Morris, and John Adams, all took part in writing the Constitution. None of them were Christian. (Although Gouverneur Morris did have some Christian Ideals, he never considered himself Christian, but somewhere in between Christianity and deism)
