A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[ladyneeva]

I stand behind my statement... the only time I have EVER seen anyone anywhere whine about the religious-ness of marriage was when they were trying to redefine the term to be solely religious.

Everyone else if asked will just say it's when two people are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

If marriage was only a religious thing, as you claim, there would be people campaigning seriously to ban divorce, to ban courthouse ceremonies, to remove legal rights from straight couples who are not married in a church or not members of a church.

None of this is happening, so it is obvious that even the religious types don't actually give a flying fuck about if marriage is or is not religious in nature. They ONLY pull out that argument as an excuse to deny marriage to people they don't like.

Separate but equal isn't. We proved that the last time it was tried. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them just to appease the church, the racists, the sexists, or any other group that promotes anything other than 100% equal treatment under the law for everyone.

[machinest]

Another problem with changing the term used for "legal marriage "is that many of the laws pertaining to the rights and responsibility's of a "married couple" use that word and would have to be rewritten wholesale to refer to a civil union.

[HYHYBT]

Since the thread has wandered over that way anyway... one of the rights of civil marriage *is* the terminology. Churches already choose which marriages to recognize and which not to; there simply is no valid reason for this to be any different.

Though I'd gladly take 'civil union' over the nothing at all we have here

[KabeRinnaul]

I stand behind my statement... the only time I have EVER seen anyone anywhere whine about the religious-ness of marriage was when they were trying to redefine the term to be solely religious.

I am trying to redefine that term, in exactly that manner. But you're making a big assumption about the reasons I have, and about the whine levels of my posts. And while Machinest makes a good point about having to change other laws to reflect a change in definition, that's not an exceptionally large hurdle, for two reasons:

1. You can introduce an addendum (or whatever the term should be, I've only ever had one law course) to state that the new term applies to the previous wording.
2. Just not get too terribly caught up in the wording to begin with. I can accept "Legal Marriage", "Secular Marriage", "Civil Marriage" or whatever. The point is to be able to separate the two.

Everyone else if asked will just say it's when two people are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

If marriage was only a religious thing, as you claim, there would be people campaigning seriously to ban divorce, to ban courthouse ceremonies, to remove legal rights from straight couples who are not married in a church or not members of a church.

The point of that idea was less asking for a definition of marriage and more asking "what's the first thing that you think of when you hear that word". I still believe the first thing most people think of is the ceremony.

It's not that marriage is a solely religious thing, otherwise a hardcore atheist friend of mine would never have proposed to his girlfriend at the time. The issue is just that many people, especially those who argue against gay marriage, conflate the legal and religious sides of marriage. So long as they do that, they will argue against any changes to marriage because they will consider it a change to the entire institution, including what their own beliefs allow.

My goal is to make it so they can't make the two issues out to be the same.

None of this is happening, so it is obvious that even the religious types don't actually give a flying fuck about if marriage is or is not religious in nature. They ONLY pull out that argument as an excuse to deny marriage to people they don't like.

I'd say that the "only" clearly isn't true because I've got no problem with gay people at all, and am all for them having every right a straight person does. But then I realized that it actually doesn't apply to me because I'm not arguing this based on a religious background, nor do I consider myself a particularly religious person.

Separate but equal isn't. We proved that the last time it was tried. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them just to appease the church, the racists, the sexists, or any other group that promotes anything other than 100% equal treatment under the law for everyone.

I don't want separate but equal.

I want separate and completely different in every conceivable way because they aren't even the same thing.

The purpose here is NOT to keep marriage for one group and give unions or whatever term you prefer to another. The purpose is to completely separate the concepts of a legal and religious union regardless of what we call them. The religious side of the argument will never fully accept the idea of gay marriage as it currently stands. And understand I am intentionally speaking in sweeping gestures, here. Plenty of religious people and a number of churches are more than willing to accept and honor the idea, but the majority of them are not, and that majority is the important part, because our legal system is based on majority votes.

Like I said above. I don't care what you call it - marriage, union, joining, bond, whatever. I don't care who you marry or even if you marry. It's not really any of my business and if you want it from a religious standpoint, I have no authority to cast moral judgment on anyone.

But people get hung up on definitions and meanings. Maybe if we tell them we're not talking about marriage, they won't be so defensive. But as soon as that word enters the debate, many conservative Christians (and yes, those of other faiths too, but I'm primarily discussing American law and thus will focus on the majority religion here) will immediately start trying to defend their beliefs.

And the problem is, I don't want to be arguing about anyone's beliefs. I want to be debating the ethics of denying rights to one class of people.

That's why I want to separate the two, and why I don't care what people call it but would change it if I can. If using a different word or changing the issue in that manner is what it takes to give equal rights to everyone, that's a compromise I am willing to make.

[Rapscallion]

So only religious couples get to use the term married? Thats odd, I haven't seen a single thing about heterosexual non-Christian or even non-religious couples being forbidden to use that term.

Well, yes, but let's face it - if we don't protect the atheists having a right to be married, then the married religious people will be next, and if we don't allow them to get married, then ...

Slippery slope - slippery in both directions

Rpascallion

[SG15Z]

*sigh* I hate when people bring up laws in the OT. NOt that I want to ignore them, but because no one seems to understand why we don't follow the old Law anymore. We don't have to! Jesus fufilled the law and pretty much said you don't have to follow them anymore. All that is required is that you love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. And love your neighbor as you would yourself. In other words you follow those two rules and everything else falls into place on it's own.

Homosexuality IS a sin, yes. But we're suppose to hate the sin and love the sinner. Just because God hates the act of homosexuality doesn't mean he hates the person. Nor should we hate them.

Also even though I don't like what gays do, I hate even more the fact they don't have certain rights. They should be able to get legally married if they want. There's nothing wrong with letting gays do that. however a church should also have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple.


Now I want to address the verse again. God put the death penalty on that and pratically every other sin there was. Why? Because he was making the point that all sin is the same to him. Someone being gay is just as sinful and murdering someone. God doesn't have levels of sin, they're all equal in baddness to Him. Therefore he gives the same punishment for all of them. Eternal seperation for Him.

[ladyneeva]

The point of that idea was less asking for a definition of marriage and more asking "what's the first thing that you think of when you hear that word". I still believe the first thing most people think of is the ceremony.

First thing I think of is my ceremony. Which involved me, my husband, a judge, and a 30 minute lecture on how in the 1800's or whenever people had to wait six months or a year to get married because the judge only came through their town once or twice a year. In short, there was nothing of religion because religion or lack there of does not and SHOULD not dictate what is and is not considered a marriage.

I want separate and completely different in every conceivable way because they aren't even the same thing.

Yep, I can totally see how a man and a woman falling in love, going to the courthouse, signing a piece of paper and suddenly being the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal rights and protections is totally different in every conceivable way from two men or two women falling in love, going to the courthouse, signing a piece of paper and suddenly being the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal rights and protections.

The religious side of the argument will never fully accept the idea of gay marriage as it currently stands.

That should not even be a concern, at all, because the laws in our country should not be based on what some religion believes or what gets it's followers panties in a wad. This is a secular representative democracy, not a religious theocracy.

Plenty of religious people and a number of churches are more than willing to accept and honor the idea, but the majority of them are not, and that majority is the important part, because our legal system is based on majority votes.

If our legal system were solely based on mob rule (majority vote), slavery would still be legal, women would still be second class citizens and heaven only knows what new laws would be passed against the overweight and Hispanics.

The prejudices of the majority should never be used to decide the rights of a minority.

And the problem is, I don't want to be arguing about anyone's beliefs. I want to be debating the ethics of denying rights to one class of people.

When the only reason those rights are being denied is because of the words in some religion's holy book, it is impossible to debate the ethics of denying them rights without religion coming into it.

*sigh* I hate when people bring up laws in the OT. NOt that I want to ignore them, but because no one seems to understand why we don't follow the old Law anymore. We don't have to! Jesus fufilled the law and pretty much said you don't have to follow them anymore.

You don't follow the old law. Except for the parts about homosexuality. The only mentions in the new testament that have been translated to have any mention of the topic lump it together with these other horrible sins -- suing each other in a court of law (as opposed to a church tribunal), giving or receiving a blow job, cheating on your spouse, being a whore, stealing, drinking, slandering people, and following any other religion than Christianity.

And yet, I have never read a news story about how some guy was murdered because his wife gave him a blow job, I've never heard a news story about people accusing everyone who sues someone in a court of law being presumed to molest children, and most relevantly -- NONE of those 'sins' in that list will in any way prevent someone from getting married.

So regardless what your God may or may not think, it is plain that NOT all sins are being treated equally with regard to how many followers of your religion treat various sinners. Your neighbor cheats on his wife with the nanny, divorces his wife, marries the nanny? Sure. Might be a cause for community gossip for a while... but thats it. No scathing news articles about how 'his type' isn't welcome here, how 'his kind' are all pedophiles and animal rapists, nobody (except maybe his ex wife!) will deface his car by carving insulting slurs into it. And nobody will bat an eye down at the courthouse when he files for a new marriage license.

Homosexuality IS a sin, yes. But we're suppose to hate the sin and love the sinner.

How do you hate something that is an inextricable part of who someone is, something they couldn't change if they wanted to (and untold numbers of homosexuals have tried... and a few have tried so hard it killed or permanently maimed them) without hating a part of them?

Also, the things that many many people who consider themselves to be 'good Christians' say about homosexuals? That is not love. Telling someone they're sinners, that you hate part of them, that you "don't like what they do", that in short you disapprove of them and think they deserve to burn in hell for all eternity simply because of who they are attracted to... that is incredibly, incredibly hurtful. And yes, it does rise to the level of hate.

Hate isn't only one action or one statement. Hate can also be a thousand little things that taken one by one they aren't "hateful" at all, but when you hear them every single day, from everyone you come in contact with, and ALL YOU HEAR is how nobody likes you, you don't deserve to have the same rights, you are bad and sinful and evil... day in and day out...

Yeah. That rises well past the level of hate as far as how it feels to be that person who has to spend every day being slapped in the face with "you=sin, sin=evil, you=evil!"

however a church should also have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple.

And where, exactly, has it ever been suggested that they don't? Hell, even a straight couple can't just walk up to any church they like and get married in it -- churches deny couples the right to get married in their church all the time. The difference is that that couple can just go down to the courthouse and get married and tell the church to go hang. They don't have to engage in semantic athletics to appease the church, they don't get told oh, so sorry, but you can't have a marriage you have to have a civil commitment. It's just as good, honest. All the same rights. Just a different word because it's not really marriage, oh no, only normal people get to have that, not depraved sinners. But really, other than that, it's almost practically the exact same thing!

[jackfaire]

The point of that idea was less asking for a definition of marriage and more asking "what's the first thing that you think of when you hear that word". I still believe the first thing most people think of is the ceremony..

If you were talking the word Wedding I agree most people would think the ceremony. The word Marriage however invokes images at least in me of the actual marriage the living together, the raising kids, the falling into bed exhausted. etc.

[Ghel]

The prejudices of the majority should never be used to decide the rights of a minority.

Hear, hear!

...something they couldn't change if they wanted to...

I see this expressed a lot. While I agree with it, there's something I'd like to add: Even if someone could choose whether or not to be gay, there's still nothing wrong with it!

[HYHYBT]

Jesus fufilled the law and pretty much said you don't have to follow them anymore. All that is required is that you love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. And love your neighbor as you would yourself. In other words you follow those two rules and everything else falls into place on it's own.

Homosexuality IS a sin, yes...

See, I agree completely with your first paragraph, and therefore find the second one baffling. If you leave out the Old Testament laws, the only thing left to base "homosexuality is a sin" on is a couple of verses in the letters of Paul, which are much more likely referring to sex between men and boys, prostitution, or ritual sex... and that's leaving out his rather eccentric views on sex in general; he didn't even really approve of straight marriage except in a sort of "oh well, if that's the best you can do I guess it's OK" kind of way.

How do you hate something that is an inextricable part of who someone is, something they couldn't change if they wanted to...?

People do it ALL THE TIME. I hate diabetes and arthritis. I love my mother, who has both. Loving her does not mean I love the illnesses which make her life more difficult: just the opposite.

It's the same principle with sin, or at least is supposed to be. The main practical differences are that 1) so many people use the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" when they are, in fact, hating the 'sinner' whether they realize it or not, and 2) they are mistaken in their idea of what is sinful and what is not.

And where, exactly, has it ever been suggested that they don't {have the right to marry gay couples}?

It's been more than suggested, many times and vehemently. Of course, that's ONLY ever by the anti-marriage side, and ignores all precedent, so it doesn't matter except so far as it gets people stirred up.

There's something I'd like to add: Even if someone could choose whether or not to be gay, there's still nothing wrong with it!

AMEN!

[ladyneeva]

There was supposed to be the word even in that sentence heh... I tend to edit/change/delete/rewrite things before I post them, sometimes a dozen+ times. It should have said "something they couldn't change even if they wanted to". The even kind of conveys to me a sense of "but I can't see why they would want to" sort of.

There is a difference between loving your mother, who happens to have a disease and hating a disease, but loving your mother in spite of it.

For that matter, hate the sin love the sinner always comes with a 'but' attached... I love you BUT you are going to burn in hell for eternity. I love you BUT you disgust me. I love you BUT only if you stop being a sick baby raping pervert and give yourself to Jesus.

But fine, you can love someone while sincerely believing they deserve to be tormented for all eternity because of one tiny part of their personality.

[KabeRinnaul]

In short, there was nothing of religion because religion or lack there of does not and SHOULD not dictate what is and is not considered a marriage.

No, it shouldn't. But I'm not saying that people should only be allowed marriage if they're the right religion and orientation. I'm arguing for a terminology change that I hope would get the conservative anti-gay-marriage set to back off and let laws guaranteeing equal rights pass. After that, I don't care what anyone calls anything. You can go through the big Christian ceremony and say you're married. Or you can just get the courthouse version and say you're married.

What words people use don't really matter to me. All that does matter is equal rights for everyone. I'm only talking about the words because if playing with semantics will lead to equal rights, then yes, I'll play with semantics.

Yep, I can totally see how a man and a woman falling in love, going to the courthouse, signing a piece of paper and suddenly being the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal rights and protections is totally different in every conceivable way from two men or two women falling in love, going to the courthouse, signing a piece of paper and suddenly being the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal rights and protections.

This is more what I'm saying:
Marriage (Or "Religious Marriage" or "Ceremonial Marriage", like I said, I personally don't care about the word used) Two people (or more, why not?), be they a man and a woman, two men, or two women, fall in love and have themselves a nice ceremony which means they are spiritually joined according to their beliefs. Or just joined regardless because they felt like it, and maybe think marriage ceremonies are silly to begin with but their mothers insisted. They are granted no rights beyond what they had prior to this event.

Civil Union (Or "Legal Marriage" or "Civil Marriage", still don't care about words) Two people, be they a man and a woman, two men, or two women, fall in love and go to the courthouse, sign a piece of paper, and are suddenly the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal right and protections.

My one and only reason in making this distinction is to let the religious conservatives who would vote down any pro-gay marriage legislation believe that their beliefs are not being challenged. People put too much weight on the word "marriage" and the ideas they associate with it, which derails the entire argument.

That should not even be a concern, at all, because the laws in our country should not be based on what some religion believes or what gets it's followers panties in a wad. This is a secular representative democracy, not a religious theocracy.

It shouldn't be a concern but it is, because the key to getting measures protecting gay rights passed will be getting those who believe that it's a threat to their beliefs to let it pass. This is because, unfortunately, those people are a large portion of the voting populace. So long as they're protesting the idea of equal marriage rights on the grounds of defending their beliefs, they will be enough to block nearly any protective measures.

The prejudices of the majority should never be used to decide the rights of a minority.

They shouldn't be. But right now, they are. And if I can't separate the people from their prejudices, then maybe I can separate the issue from the prejudices and argue on those grounds.

When the only reason those rights are being denied is because of the words in some religion's holy book, it is impossible to debate the ethics of denying them rights without religion coming into it.

Which is why I use the words I do. I want to paint it like a solely legal/ethical argument, and remove the religious aspects. When they can't fall back on the holy book, they'll have to argue the point on it's own merits. And I've seen people mind's changed on the issue with this tactic.

[ladyneeva]

Changing the words used will just allow for more discrimination though. For instance, say there was a discount offered to married couples. Well, that business would be perfectly free to say that that is for MARRIED couples, not ones with civil unions.

Or take hospital visitation... and this already happens... of course you can visit your married partner... to bad you only have a civil union.

So in addition to someone having to go through billions of lines of legal code to find every instance of the word married and replace it with "civil unioned" or whatever someone else would need to draft new laws and do all the crap thats required to get them even made available for voting much less passed, simply to say "oh you can't discriminate against married couples and civilly unioned couples".

If something is exactly the same as something else, then call it by the same name. A rose is a rose and all that. Creating a false separation will just lead to more discrimination.

[smileyeagle1021]

Or take hospital visitation... and this already happens... of course you can visit your married partner... to bad you only have a civil union.

I know the truth in that... my mom had a surgery recently, she asked the surgeon if there would be any problem with me and my boyfriend coming to visit her in the hospital. The surgeon's response was "tell them that he's your nephew, the hospital won't check records to find out if that is true, especially if you the patient say it... a son's boyfriend though would be solely at the discretion of the admittance nurse, and the person normally scheduled that day is an evangelical so she probably wouldn't let him in."
Of course, we have no way of knowing what said admittance nurse would say to an unmarried girlfriend, but as it is that there is no way to change the status from unmarried to married, we will eternally be at her religious discretion.

[KabeRinnaul]

Changing the words used will just allow for more discrimination though. For instance, say there was a discount offered to married couples. Well, that business would be perfectly free to say that that is for MARRIED couples, not ones with civil unions.

Or take hospital visitation... and this already happens... of course you can visit your married partner... to bad you only have a civil union.

How do you prove whether you've had a wedding ceremony or not? If the term "Married" (and again, I only change the wording to focus the debate, without really caring what word wins out) just describes having gone through a religious/spiritual/whatever ceremony, the only proof you'd have would be your rings, and maybe some wedding photos. Why should the government keep track of religious ceremonies?

Besides, you could always explain that you are married. But you had a Pagan/Unitarian/(other religion allowing gay marriage) ceremony, and it's allowed there. That business has just opened the door to religious persecution claims.

So in addition to someone having to go through billions of lines of legal code to find every instance of the word married and replace it with "civil unioned" or whatever someone else would need to draft new laws and do all the crap thats required to get them even made available for voting much less passed, simply to say "oh you can't discriminate against married couples and civilly unioned couples".

Or just put a statement in the law saying a civil union is legally equivalent to a marriage and all references to the latter should be assumed to also apply to the former. Or just use the original wording in the actual paperwork. So long as laws were passed granting those rights, I'm not particularly worried about the terms used.

If something is exactly the same as something else, then call it by the same name. A rose is a rose and all that. Creating a false separation will just lead to more discrimination.

Except they wouldn't be the same. I'm talking about marriage having no legal benefits. All the legal benefits would be associated with civil unions. Going back to the first point, if marriage had no legal power, only religious significance, then offering a discount to "married people" and meaning strictly that, not civil unions, would be like offering a discount to "baptized people" or to "people who take communion."

Besides, Germany's legal system doesn't seem to be collapsing under this distinction.