The Street > The Lounge
Gay Marriage
U-238:
--- Quote from: LukeTom on July 03, 2015, 12:48:41 PM --- I agree with this, but have been called homophobic so many times that I have stopped saying it. I just have a problem in having the government involved in church is a slippery slope to start on. Saying this I don't disagree with gay marriage per se, just that the government shouldn't interfere with the church/what ever religious institution. But I know how you guys feel about religion sooo...
--- End quote ---
The government absolutely should not be involved in religion. That is why this ruling was so good.
If two people want to get married, they should be able to. It is a union with many different aspects that change your rights, tax brackets, etc. Who is anyone to say that two people can't enter into this agreement because of their plumbing? Not allowing two people to get married because of what the bible says is allowing religion into law. By saying anyone can get married, that is taking religion out of it.
Gay people are not going to walk into a super-religious church and demand the church marry them. The church would be well within their rights to refuse. The pastor that married my wife and I said that she would refuse to marry couples she thought "wouldn't work." So anti-gay churches need not be involved. Gays can go to the city clerk, or they get a more open minister, or they get someone licensed to perform marriages to marry them. You can get a license to marry people through an online course. . . .
The fact is, this is not the government stepping into a church. This is the government saying that marriage is a union between two people. They are not re-writing the bible.
This ruling does not affect churches in any way, except for perhaps pissing them off that their definition of marriage can no longer be forced on other people.
LukeTom:
--- Quote from: U-238 on July 03, 2015, 01:58:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: LukeTom on July 03, 2015, 12:48:41 PM --- I agree with this, but have been called homophobic so many times that I have stopped saying it. I just have a problem in having the government involved in church is a slippery slope to start on. Saying this I don't disagree with gay marriage per se, just that the government shouldn't interfere with the church/what ever religious institution. But I know how you guys feel about religion sooo...
--- End quote ---
The government absolutely should not be involved in religion. That is why this ruling was so good.
If two people want to get married, they should be able to. It is a union with many different aspects that change your rights, tax brackets, etc. Who is anyone to say that two people can't enter into this agreement because of their plumbing? Not allowing two people to get married because of what the bible says is allowing religion into law. By saying anyone can get married, that is taking religion out of it.
Gay people are not going to walk into a super-religious church and demand the church marry them. The church would be well within their rights to refuse. The pastor that married my wife and I said that she would refuse to marry couples she thought "wouldn't work." So anti-gay churches need not be involved. Gays can go to the city clerk, or they get a more open minister, or they get someone licensed to perform marriages to marry them. You can get a license to marry people through an online course. . . .
The fact is, this is not the government stepping into a church. This is the government saying that marriage is a union between two people. They are not re-writing the bible.
This ruling does not affect churches in any way, except for perhaps pissing them off that their definition of marriage can no longer be forced on other people.
--- End quote ---
It comes down to semantics, some people see 'marriage' as having innately religious connotations. Perhaps one of the easier ways of doing it would to simply make civil-partnerships and marriages have the same legal equal footing. Some people say marriage is religious, some say it is legal. Let religion decide what they want to do.
nwcstn:
The way I see it the government never should have gotten involved with marriage from the beginning. Government involvement is what fucjed up marriage. This whole debate wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government giving married couples benefits.
CARROTFVCKER:
--- Quote from: Han Solo on July 03, 2015, 09:45:44 PM ---The way I see it the government never should have gotten involved with marriage from the beginning. Government involvement is what fucjed up marriage. This whole debate wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government giving married couples benefits.
--- End quote ---
this deserves a rainbow box!!!
dude...:
back in the early days of the modern state when they were making rules and laws and such, when religion was almost ubiquitous, it heavily influenced values and the creation of rules and regulations under which the state operated. since then, thankfully the church and government are more separate (maybe not in parts of the US which can be really backwards about this stuff in some states, which is why this bill passing is so important).
i think its short sighted to say the government fucked up marriage, just because marriage as a concept has morphed considerably over the last few hundred years.
if your religion doesnt want to acknowledge same sex marriage, then thats an issue for that institution to decide on (i think religion sucks anyway), but its not fair that under the modern state which governs people of all faiths and beliefs, that some people have lesser rights than other citizens when it comes to forming romantic unions/partnerships.
its super annoying how some of the people opposing gay marriage are now acting like they are being marginalised and being hard done to, while LGTBQ+ people have had to put up with that shit their whole lives.
there are already plenty of loving gay couples out there getting on with their lives with their families exactly as heterosexual people do, meanwhile having no effect on those who speak out against them. yet because of their sexuality, for years their union has been perceived as less legitimate by the state simply due to their gender.
the whole issue is about equality for everyone, no matter who they love. in the future we will look back shamefully at the bigotry which permeated our society for so long, in the same way we look back at racial segregation 50-60 years prior
also, for the australian mandem, tony abbot is a total fuckwit and i cant wait til hes out of office
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version