The Obssession with Homosexuality

[Vuk]

Then those christians fail to make the distinction between legal and religious marriage.

A misunderstanding is not a justification for a difference in treatment between gay couples and straight couples.

Gays should be allowed to marry for the law. Religion is private, church and whatever religious institution can decide who they want to marry, that's none of the state's business. But when it comes to the legal marriage, gays should be allowed to marry. There's no justification for the current discrimination.

Difference in treatment? Christians are not arguing that they be treated differently, simply that they shouldn't apply (what Christians see as) the legal representation of a Christian institution to themselves in a way that will change its meaning. Christians are afraid that if legal marriage is changed, that religious marriage will follow. They are two entirely different things in reality, but in perception, the same. As I said, it is about as much discriminating as not letting my dog be legally recognized as a Rabbi! You can see why it means a lot to Christians (because it is literally sacred to them), but why should it mean so much to gays who want to change the legal definition? To use my dog example, you could see why Jews would justifiably be very angry if I tried to make my dog legally classified as a Rabbi, but it would be hard to understand why it would mean anything to me or my dog. As I said, I think that marriage should not be recognized in any form, but as it is, it is impossible to seperate it from its religious origins. (simply because of the way that it is percieved) Don't let there be any difference in treatment, but if it means that much to them, let them keep their silly word. They got a claim of thousands of years on the institution.

[Andres]

Difference in treatment? Christians are not arguing that they be treated differently, simply that they shouldn't apply (what Christians see as) the legal representation of a Christian institution to themselves in a way that will change its meaning. Christians are afraid that if legal marriage is changed, that religious marriage will follow. They are two entirely different things in reality, but in perception, the same.

If legal and religious marriage are different in reality, than the perception that they are the same, is wrong.

You can see why it means a lot to Christians (because it is literally sacred to them), but why should it mean so much to gays who want to change the legal definition?

Now, this is where the mistake is made.

One of the underlying principles of our legal systems is equality or, in it's negative definition non discrimination.

That's the principle.

If you say "straight couples can marry, gay couples can not"; then you are asking for different treament. It's not up to the gay people to back up their demand of being allowed to being married with sufficient reasons; by asking to be allowed to marry, they simply ask the application of a principle: equal treatment.

It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.

Asking gays to explain why they should be allowed to be married, is turning the world upside down, more: it's infuriating.

Equal treatment is the norm, the people opposing gay marriage demand the exception. If you want an exception on equal treatment, then you have to justify it. So far, I have seen no justification.

No, religion is not a justification, since we're talking about legal marriage, not the religious institution. Seperation between church and state; another of our fine principles.

The more you think about it, the more opposing gay marriage equals throwing overboard modern principles that are the basis of our current societies.

[Vuk]

If legal and religious marriage are different in reality, than the perception that they are the same, is wrong.




Now, this is where the mistake is made.

One of the underlying principles of our legal systems is equality or, in it's negative definition non discrimination.

That's the principle.

If you say "straight couples can marry, gay couples can not"; then you are asking for different treament. It's not up to the gay people to back up their demand of being allowed to being married with sufficient reasons; by asking to be allowed to marry, they simply ask the application of a principle: equal treatment.

It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.

Asking gays to explain why they should be allowed to be married, is turning the world upside down, more: it's infuriating.

Equal treatment is the norm, the people opposing gay marriage demand the exception. If you want an exception on equal treatment, then you have to justify it. So far, I have seen no justification.

No, religion is not a justification, since we're talking about legal marriage, not the religious institution. Seperation between church and state; another of our fine principles.

The more you think about it, the more opposing gay marriage equals throwing overboard modern principles that are the basis of our current societies.

So if there is a legal institution of Rabbis and I want my dog to be a Rabbi I can make him a legal Rabbi? THAT is where the connection to religion comes. Christians want their institution to be recognized by the state, and it is being. Still, it is a religious institution being recognized by the state. It is seperate, and the church doesn't control it, but it stemmed from religion, and represents a religious institution. That is why changing it would cheapen the religious institution in their minds. Likewise say there is a legally recognized position of Rabbi (not sure if there is or not), and the government recognizes them as people who have the legal right to declare food Kosher. Why should non-Jews care about being Rabbis and being able to declare food Kosher? Is it unequal treatment to say that they cannot? (or that their dogs cannot be Rabbis :P) Sure, the state could make it that tables are Rabbis, because it is a seperate institution, but it is REPRESENTING a religious institution. As I said, best to do away with legal institutions that represent religious institutions, but as long as you have them, you should respect that religion's definition. And how is it being treated differently? If they have the same rights, they will be treated the same. Likewise, me declaring myself a Rabbi is not gonna help me and suddenly make me equal with the world. I understand your point Andres, but I think you should be arguing for absolving the legal institution of marriage, not changing it. Surely you can see how changing it would weaken the religious institution in the minds of Christians. Why do that? Like with my Rabbi example, why do that? My dog being a Rabbi doesn't help me at all, I just tread on Jewish tradition and get them angry with me. That is why I say, it is sillyness on both sides. Marriage should be defined by the religious definition as long as it exists, but I think it would be much better and take care of the problem to get rid of government representation of religious institutions.

[Andres]

So if there is a legal institution of Rabbis and I want my dog to be a Rabbi I can make him a legal Rabbi?

I don't keep myself busy with "what if there would be". There isn't. And bringing a dog into it, makes your argument very silly, so I don't take it serious. A dog is not a human being.

Christians want their institution to be recognized by the state, and it is being. Still, it is a religious institution being recognized by the state.

No, it is not a religious institution. There's legal marriage and there's the religious institution. Those are NOT the same, despite of how many times you claim that it is. It's not. Get over it.

That is why changing it would cheapen the religious institution in their minds.

Indeed, in their minds and only in their minds. They ask for unequal treatment, they have to bring good reasons. "I think it will cheapen my private, non of the state's business, religious institution" is not a justification for discriminiation.

I understand your point Andres, but I think you should be arguing for absolving the legal institution of marriage, not changing it.

Ah, now we're talking. That's something completely different and I do consider it an alternative solution. Get rid of mariage entirely and there can be no longer discrimination.

However, if people are going to live together, be it two or more persons, then it is desirable imo to have some form of civil union, a legal framework which the parties involved can or cannot accept, including legal consequences. If people are going to share their lives and belongings, there should be the possibility of some legal protection and/or consequences. But then again, some will say that's the same as marriage, but it's just no longer called marriage. Still, a legal framework for a long lasting relationship is reasonable and should be there, at least as an option you can chose for.

Surely you can see how changing it would weaken the religious institution in the minds of Christians.

And there, I disagree again; it is wrong to mix up the legal marriage with the religious one. They are seperate. The fact that a part of the religious people fail to understand that cannot be a justification for discrimination.

Marriage should be defined by the religious definition as long as it exists, but I think it would be much better and take care of the problem to get rid of government representation of religious institutions.

The legal marriage is not a religious institution.

[Vuk]

I don't keep myself busy with "what if there would be". There isn't. And bringing a dog into it, makes your argument very silly, so I don't take it serious. A dog is not a human being.




No, it is not a religious institution. There's legal marriage and there's the religious institution. Those are NOT the same, despite of how many times you claim that it is. It's not. Get over it.



Indeed, in their minds and only in their minds. They ask for unequal treatment, they have to bring good reasons. "I think it will cheapen my private, non of the state's business, religious institution" is not a justification for discriminiation.



Ah, now we're talking. That's something completely different and I do consider it an alternative solution. Get rid of mariage entirely and there can be no longer discrimination.

However, if people are going to live together, be it two or more persons, then it is desirable imo to have some form of civil union, a legal framework which the parties involved can or cannot accept, including legal consequences. If people are going to share their lives and belongings, there should be the possibility of some legal protection and/or consequences. But then again, some will say that's the same as marriage, but it's just no longer called marriage. Still, a legal framework for a long lasting relationship is reasonable and should be there, at least as an option you can chose for.



And there, I disagree again; it is wrong to mix up the legal marriage with the religious one. They are seperate. The fact that a part of the religious people fail to understand that cannot be a justification for discrimination.



The legal marriage is not a religious institution.

You're missing my point Andres. I did NOT say that they are the same institution in anything but perception. They ARE different institutions, but the legal one is a representation of the religious one. It is the legal form of a religious institution, and for that reason, I think should be gotten rid of. Marriage was a religious institution that religious people wanted represented by and protected by the state. That is what legal marriage is/was. That is why I think we can both agree that it should be gotten rid of. As I said, there should be civil unions that are in all things but name marriage, and gays should be able to have them. I think that if you are going to keep marriage, that you should still have these unions. The thing at stake here is the word, because it is take from religious doctrine. THAT is what Christians want to protect, as Jews would want to protect the word Rabbi if I wanted to legally make myself a Rabbi so that I could demand equal treatment. I am all for gays getting equal treatment, but the word marriage has religious underpinnings and it makes no sense to try to take that word from Christians and make them accept a different meaning than what God told them. That is why I say it is sillyness on both sides. Why highjack the word Marriage? It is as silly as me trying to highjack the word Rabbi. It belongs to a religion and you should let them have it. Why anger Jews for no reason by making a legal definition of their word different than their religious one? Likewise, why anger Christians by doing the same? Give gays equal treatment by all means, but there is no sense aggravating people of religious persuasion by trying to legally redefine the institutions that they think God gave them. Just call it a civil union and get rid of the legal term marriage! Don't go messing with something Christians think comes from God.

[Kralizec]

Even if the term "marriage" has religious overtones it has evolved past it, and I'm pretty sure the term was used before most of Europe became christian. I see where you're coming from Vuk, but even if the institution was renamed to Civil Union people will still talk about getting married and marriages, gay people included.

[Vuk]

Even if the term "marriage" has religious overtones it has evolved past it, and I'm pretty sure the term was used before most of Europe became christian. I see where you're coming from Vuk, but even if the institution was renamed to Civil Union people will still talk about getting married and marriages, gay people included.

Let them, that is a private choice. The thing is that the word became used to describe the institution that Christians believe that God ordained. It is a thing before God, not man. To get a little Biblical on you, did people go to get married before Caesar or God? They did it "In the eyes of God" because it was a pledge they made before God, and God held them accountable, not the State. From a Christian perspective, it should not be a State institution either. There should be a State institution of civil unions, not marriages. Gays are not gonna be treated any better if they highjack a word that has sacred proportions to a large amount of the population. They are gonna be treated exactly as they would if the name was civil union instead, only they are gonna have Christians mad. If I am living in a Muslim country and I am not being treated fairly, I would argue for equal treatment, but I would not try to highjack religious words that are sacred to them and that do not apply to me. If a gay has a RELIGIOUS argument that they are entitled to enter into the institution with their gay partner before God, I would listen to their argument. That is a matter of church, not state though. (and I am not sure if it is just my experience or what, but by far the majority of gays I know are non-religious, Jewish, or Muslim. I only know one gay who claimed to be Christian and he recently announced his disgust for Christianity because he though it condemned his lifestyle. I wonder if there is statistics on that.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Likewise, why anger Christians by doing the same? Give gays equal treatment by all means, but there is no sense aggravating people of religious persuasion by trying to legally redefine the institutions that they think God gave them. Just call it a civil union and get rid of the legal term marriage! Don't go messing with something Christians think comes from God.

I don't think that standing in the way of what two consenting adults want to do with their lives, affording them the same rights and privileges as the rest of humanity, is something we should do just to make sure Christians don't get offended. If you've already conceded that gays have a right to be gay, have a right to do gay things together, and can be afforded ALL the rights of a couple, and the only sticking point now is that you don't like it compared to your "holier than theirs" marriage, it's time to let it go. They are going to call it marriage. You can't really stop them from getting married in their hearts, and you don't, apparently, want to stop them from having all the legal rights afforded to marriage. The bottom line is it makes you feel all icky when you have their relationships compared to your more "Godly" form of love. But at the end of the day, you have to deal with things that are offensive to your religious sensibilities, and how you personally feel about the issue does not have any bearing on the matter. Saying it makes you sad for them to have equal treatment and the same word, when you're willing to give them equal treatment, is losing the argument. It is just a word. And Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage as a word, nor does any religion. And challenging someone's legal marriage purely on the grounds you don't like it called marriage, though you don't challenge anything they do otherwise... it's absurd.

ATPG, no offense, but you are the most closed minded person I have ever talked to.

I'm not the one standing in the way of the happiness of hundreds of millions of people simply because I don't like the word they wish to associate themselves with. There are more important things in life than quibbling over words. If you've already conceded that gay people are normal upstanding equal members of our society and should be afforded the same rights as anyone else, you've also afforded them the right to call their relationship a marriage. That's part of having equal rights. You cannot monopolize a word; other people get to use it too.

You may counter that if we shouldn't quibble over words, then why am I arguing?

You have to demonstrate why they can't use that word, otherwise they can freely use it by default. The responsibility of showing why marriage can only be as you define it to be is on you, otherwise you have no basis for stopping them from calling it what you like. All I've seen so far is your religion says it's not a good idea. Not a good enough reason.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think that standing in the way of what two consenting adults want to do with their lives, affording them the same rights and privileges as the rest of humanity, is something we should do just to make sure Christians don't get offended. If you've already conceded that gays have a right to be gay, have a right to do gay things together, and can be afforded ALL the rights of a couple, and the only sticking point now is that you don't like it compared to your "holier than theirs" marriage, it's time to let it go. They are going to call it marriage. You can't really stop them from getting married in their hearts, and you don't, apparently, want to stop them from having all the legal rights afforded to marriage. The bottom line is it makes you feel all icky when you have their relationships compared to your more "Godly" form of love. But at the end of the day, you have to deal with things that are offensive to your religious sensibilities, and how you personally feel about the issue does not have any bearing on the matter. Saying it makes you sad for them to have equal treatment and the same word, when you're willing to give them equal treatment, is losing the argument. It is just a word. And Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage as a word, nor does any religion. And challenging someone's legal marriage purely on the grounds you don't like it called marriage, though you don't challenge anything they do otherwise... it's absurd.

Regardless of what many (most?) Christians want, this will become the dominant fact. It's been called marriage for centuries. Gays want to be married, not unioned. Gays and those who favor that viewpoint will label it "marriage" regardless of what governments or anyone else wants it called. If the churched shift their preferred label to some new term, gays will do so as well in order to continue their basic quest (having the gay lifestyle viewed as and treated as perfectly normal in all respects). So, unless we are ready to persecute them and force them back into the closet through discriminatory statutes and viscious social pressure, the issue is lost.

[Tribesman]

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government.

Its a social institution that was adopted by religions .

[Vuk]

Its a social institution that was adopted by religions .

Wrong Tribesy. The word marriage over the centuries came to describe the Holy Institution ordaned by God. That is what it still means today, and the legal definition of it was adopted as a way to recognize and protect the sanctity of those religious marriages.

EDIT: There are thousands of different types of human bonds and contracts, and marriage through the centuries became the word to represent the specific one sanctified by God. I will try to look up a little linguistic history on the word itsself, but I have seen it proven before in a documentary and read it in a history book that European governments, and then colonial governments, and then the US government adopted legal marriage as a way to protect the rights of those in the religious institution and recognize it as valid.

[PBI]

Wrong Tribesy. The word marriage over the centuries came to describe the Holy Institution ordaned by God. That is what it still means today, and the legal definition of it was adopted as a way to recognize and protect the sanctity of those religious marriages.

No, that is one meaning of the word. It has however evolved to have other meanings, such as to describe a couple who have been "married" by the state and thus enjoy certain legal protections (and social status) with no overt religious connotations.

The state, and certainly the church, do not and should not have the power to dictate the "proper" usage of the English language, nor to outlaw usage of words in what they consider an incorrect sense. If those concerned about gay marriage are truly worried that the use of the term will lead to confusion with their own religious institution, they are free to coin a new term to describe a specifically religious marriage.