Exactly. Marriage in a church has zero benefit so why bother. As a separate organization they can make that policy if they choose.
The whole religion discussion is retarded anyway. Why should morals of christians affect me as a non-believer or muslim or hindu. That doesn't make any fucking sense at all.
Or the converse, why do the morals of a small minority of highly atheistic and secular individuals, who claim to want to be left alone, and want religion to have no say over their life, insist on making me, and my religion, comply with their demands and objectives, to the exclusion and destruction of my own? A common argument is that gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. I disagree. This is why: It's all well and good that gays want to get married. I don't even care if they do, because it really doesn't affect me, it's entirely their own little niche issue. (And on that note, the participation rate of homosexuals in marriage is INCREDIBLY SMALL, most homosexuals want nothing to do with marriage.) But this is where it DOES affect me: When homosexual activists (who make up an even smaller minority of a very small minority to begin with) insist that my religion MUST recognize their marriage. That my religion MUST do more than simply tolerate them, but MUST accept them with open arms, must stop any and all discussion, preaching, teaching, etc that in any way even remotely paints them in a negative light. It's not enough that they have a marriage recognized by the state with all the legal benefits entailed therein. (And at the moment, those couples who are legally permitted to be married as homosexuals actually have more benefits than straight couples, mostly because the federal government doesn't recognize them as married couples and so hasn't yet started taxing them.) They want my religious recognition, approval, and the elimination of anything that my religion teaches that paints them, their behavior, and their union, as negative. Whereas homosexual activists assert they have a right to be married (where?), I, and my religion, have an actual right, protected by the Constitution of the United States (where I reside, I don't care about foreign nations, thank you) to be able to practice my religion as I please, in so far as it complies with the laws of the State, which State is not allowed to make laws stating what religion I must be apart of. I'm not going out of my way to make the lives of homosexuals miserable, I am not seeking them out where they reside, and condemning them, I am not doing anything to them. I tolerate homosexual behavior. I have several homosexual friends and acquaintances. But this apparently is insufficient. I must renounce my religion, I must cease speaking bad of homosexuality, I must ACCEPT, and not merely tolerate, homosexual behavior as good, awesome, and worthy of celebration. I and my religion must change to conform to you and your worldview. You are absolutely, and totally, intolerant of me and my religion. And you say I am "fascist, greedy, inconsiderate, indoctrinated, racist, douche-bags" and you wonder why we so actively oppose the homosexual agenda? You accuse us of trying to shove our morals down your throat. Who is shoving whose morals down whose throat, here? Here in this very thread are several calls for the elimination of religion and religious participation in marriage. And you think you are so good, so moralistic, that you don't see the irony? Why do you care what my religion says about Homosexuals? Why is it so important that my religion, when you are allegedly an ATHEIST, and so shouldn't even give a damn, approve of your behavior?
Well written. People who want to participate in homosexual marriage should be able to civilly. If someone wants a Catholic religion, etc. then they must abide by the policies set forth by that organization (same goes with businesses and organizations like the Boy Scouts - I may not agree with it, but it's their organization to do as they see fit). This same concept applies to religiously inclined politicians as they should abide by the Constitution, etc. (equal rights for all and so on) and not let their belief system interfer. If you cannot handle that, then you should avoid becoming involved in the organization.
I used to approve gay marriage wholeheartedly, but then I realized a few things. In the areas where gay marriage is allowed, there are tons of examples of gay couples suing people of a religious nature for not wanting to accommodate or assist gay people with their weddings, or other things. Examples include photographers that say they do not want to photograph a gay wedding, owners of a bed and breakfast that have had longstanding rules about sleeping together in the same room/same bed, churches that refuse to allow gay couples to use their facilities for marriage purposes. There are gay people that are going out of their ways just to target religious persons or establishments with lawsuits. There is a huge difference in my mind between refusing to take pictures of black couples, because you are a racist, and refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding because you are religious. That's how it is in most states, note no where does it say sexual preference. States like California have added amendments to this right, to include sexual preference, and that is where the cases of the lawsuits are coming from. Slavery was wrong, I can agree to that point. This is on a whole other worldly and otherworldly level however in my opinion. I do not align with any one particular religion, and I don't subscribe to the theory that there is or is not a God, call me an inbetweener. The line needs to be drawn somewhere on when you can and cannot sue for discrimination based upon sexual orientation for religious purposes. I think it's highly inappropriate for a gay couple to try and get married in a church that does not accept gays, and then turn around and say "OMG WE'RE SUING YOU FOR ALL YOU ARE WORTH!" when they say no, that is MONEY GRUBBING. It's a very fine line though, when you look at say, the photographer who didn't want to photograph a gay wedding. It would be a terrible travesty to force her to do so, but in some states legally she would have to, or face a lawsuit. It is discrimination, but at the same time it is wrong to make them do it. But what we are dealing with here is a sacred law for some people that has been around for a millennium. If gay people are going to be allowed to sue people for not wanting to accommodate their marriages based upon a religious reason, then I am AGAINST gay marriage. If the law can amend itself to make suing people for refusing to serve for religious reasons ILLEGAL, then I am for it.
I agree. They should only get equal treatment just like heterosexual couples receive. As I mentioned in my earlier post, a private individual or organization can make a policy however they please as long as it doesn't violate the law (discrimination with labor, etc.). People who whine about stuff like that need to find a better alternative that chooses to be more accommodating by their own decision. The federal and state governments, however, are not private and should extend the ability to marriage to homosexual couples.
Why? Why should they, as opposed to merely voting it in as something people want? I will also comment that there is an enormous misunderstanding of the role of federal and state governments. The federal government has very specific, enumerated responsibilities in the Constitution. If it's not in there, the Federal government shouldn't be doing it. The Department of Education, Marriage (everything to do with it, hetero, homo, etc) and other things which are NOT enumerated in the Constitution represent a federal overreach that it is not actually authorized to do. Powers not enumerated and assigned to the federal government are left to the state governments, to do as they please. States can decide, on a case by case basis, if they want to allow homosexual marriage. The federal government on the other hand, shouldn't. In fact it should abdicate its role in this.
It's been argued that this doesn't cover sexual orientation, but some states have amended this to add that. (see what tiffykoros wrote above) Also, why should the government limit you if the act in question does no harm to another person? If you must do a vote, then ideally it should be done on a state level so that way each local population is taken care of.
Kira seems to defend a butthurt government. I won't argue with that. The best part was Kira saying that Atheists are a small minority. Heh.
Atheist ARE a minority. A large percentage of the people who classify under having no religion still believe in a god. Atheism and the lack of a religion are not the same things. Majority of the world has a religion, atheism is a religion. With almost 35% of the world being some form of Christian, and nearly 20% being Islam. Estimates are that about 15% of the world aligns itself as being lumped under the "No religion, Does not believe in God, Atheist, & Agnostic". Of that 15% it is not known how many actually align themselves under the Atheist title. *** Edit: To clarify, after further research the consensus seems to be that 12.5% of the world is Agnostic/Non-Religious/Atheist, actual Atheist compose 2.5% of the worlds total population.
Mostly I was referring to homosexuals, which are a very, very small minority. But since you brought up Atheists and seem to think they're NOT a small minority: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This site includes agnostics with atheists, and that comes to between 3% and 9% for the United States. Their source for information is indicated at the bottom of the page. http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/02/how-many-atheists-in-america.htm This site uses elimination to determine the percentage of atheists, and uses data from 2004 or earlier for their deduction. They still come to single digit percentages. Atheists only seem like they're everywhere. In truth they're a very loud, very vocal minority that gets up in everyone's business, very aggressively. Edit: Apparently I was being generous, here's a bit of info off of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism So, .7% of the United States population, in 2008, identified themselves as Atheist. Note that Gallup reports that in May of 2010, 16% of America declared no religious affiliation. Before you leap on this and say "HAH! 16%!" consider that no religious affiliation does not negate belief in deity of some sort. It's increasingly popular of late to "believe" but belong to no institution itself.
When did I pick you alone as a target? If you see yourself as a target then you made yourself a target. The Vatican. Gay Marriage should be a right within the law. Not in the churches. It is ones choice to join a church or religion and it is the religions right to set the policies in that organization. No one can complain if they do not like how those policies proceed. They do not have to be a part of it. I will add more stuff when I am not streaming. If I feel like it.
Don't worry you only landed in one category and it wasn't a super bad one. I could actually throw some more categories in there.
I think you are missing the point. They do have to be a part of it, otherwise they get sued up the wazoo for discrimination. This is based on fact in regions where gay marriage is legal, not simple theory crafting. Our legal system isn't ready to handle gay marriage. We need major reforms in the court systems and discrimination laws before we can even think about allowing it.
