DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?
Pages:   ... [266]
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 6629, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/11/2008 07:06:35 PM · #26
Originally posted by dahkota:
(The catholic church does not recognize my marriage as I did not get married within the catholic church. To be recognized, my husband would have to get his first marriage annulled and then we would have to remarry. Yes, in the eyes of the church, we live in sin.)

Same with my parents. They married in a civil ceremony in 1958 because my father is Catholic, my mother Protestant. They are not actually married according to the Catholic church. However, this is of course pure bullshit. It is exactly the same kind of bullshit promulgated by people who suggest idiotic things like the American state sanctions only marriage as defined by some non-existent supernatural being, or that a clear commission of discrimination is the same thing as equal rights. Only the irretrievably dogmatic could commit such atrocities of reason.
 10/11/2008 07:56:13 PM · #27
Originally posted by Louis:
....or that a clear commission of discrimination is the same thing as equal rights. Only the irretrievably dogmatic could commit such atrocities of reason.


[user]Louis[/user], I am in awe of your command of the language. Well said.
 10/11/2008 08:06:30 PM · #28
To answer the thread title, I do believe they are evolving. There ARE a few dinosaurs left, but hopefully they'll be extinct before long :)
 10/11/2008 08:13:30 PM · #29
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

In case B, the man still has the RIGHT to marry. He chose not to marry and instead chose to be in an alternative relationship. He self-selected to not marry, no one infringed upon his rights. Marriage is DEFINED as one man + one woman. You cannot redefine it. Since the person you used in your example is one man, we see that he fits into that formula just fine. But to have marriage he would need to find "one woman". Otherwise he chooses not to marry.

Simple and reasonable.


As was shown in the other thread, it HAS been redefined many times throughout history, and may be redefined again, so this argument doesn't hold water.


Not sure what you're talking about. But God ordained marriage as one man and one woman. That is the definition for America and there is no need to change it to give SPECIAL rights to a self-selected and unverifiable group.


Mythology has no place in government.


No, but truth does. Regardless, marriage has always been one man + one woman in America. The mistakes of other countries do not apply here.
 10/11/2008 08:14:08 PM · #30
Originally posted by BeeCee:
To answer the thread title, I do believe they are evolving. There ARE a few dinosaurs left, but hopefully they'll be extinct before long :)


let's hope not.
 10/11/2008 08:27:27 PM · #31
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.
10/11/2008 08:33:32 PM · #32
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.

I think it's as important to challenge dogmatic positions as forcefully as claims not based on evidence. Consider how many voices here are raised in opposition of non-evidential, purely dogmatic positions that seek to curtail rights. If nobody said anything, you'd think the place reeked of intolerance.
 10/11/2008 08:35:47 PM · #33
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.

I think it's as important to challenge dogmatic positions as forcefully as claims not based on evidence. Consider how many voices here are raised in opposition of non-evidential, purely dogmatic positions that seek to curtail rights. If nobody said anything, you'd think the place reeked of intolerance.


Normally, I'd agree with you, but it's not a few voices raised in opposition, it's always one (maybe two) from the same source, over and over, in ways that scream "LOOK AT ME". We're not raising our voices in opposition, we're giving in to an obvious cry for attention.

That's how I see it anyway.

10/11/2008 08:38:18 PM · #34
There's some truth to that.
 10/11/2008 08:45:03 PM · #35
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.

I think it's as important to challenge dogmatic positions as forcefully as claims not based on evidence. Consider how many voices here are raised in opposition of non-evidential, purely dogmatic positions that seek to curtail rights. If nobody said anything, you'd think the place reeked of intolerance.


Actually, the evidence *IS* that in America, sanctioned marriage is just one man and one woman. So the claims to the contrary are what is dogmatic in the face of evidence.

As I clearly explained, the American position curtails NO ONE'S RIGHTS. Everyone can be married if they choose to.

Nice spin, though.

And my position is also not intolerant. You cannot TOLERATE something you support. You only tolerate that with which you disagree. I wish no ill-will to those who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle.
 10/11/2008 08:45:12 PM · #36
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.

I think it's as important to challenge dogmatic positions as forcefully as claims not based on evidence. Consider how many voices here are raised in opposition of non-evidential, purely dogmatic positions that seek to curtail rights. If nobody said anything, you'd think the place reeked of intolerance.


Normally, I'd agree with you, but it's not a few voices raised in opposition, it's always one (maybe two) from the same source, over and over, in ways that scream "LOOK AT ME". We're not raising our voices in opposition, we're giving in to an obvious cry for attention.

That's how I see it anyway.


I'd have to agree with you on this... always the same one or two wanting to stir the pot!
10/11/2008 08:45:47 PM · #37
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.

I think it's as important to challenge dogmatic positions as forcefully as claims not based on evidence. Consider how many voices here are raised in opposition of non-evidential, purely dogmatic positions that seek to curtail rights. If nobody said anything, you'd think the place reeked of intolerance.


Normally, I'd agree with you, but it's not a few voices raised in opposition, it's always one (maybe two) from the same source, over and over, in ways that scream "LOOK AT ME". We're not raising our voices in opposition, we're giving in to an obvious cry for attention.

That's how I see it anyway.


If you cannot handle valid differing opinions, you really should not be in a discussion forum.
 10/11/2008 08:46:33 PM · #38
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.


I couldn't agree with you more!
 10/11/2008 09:57:34 PM · #39
Okay, I won't poke sticks through the bars of the animal's cage any more :)

10/11/2008 10:10:05 PM · #40
Originally posted by dahkota:
To be recognized by God, you must have a religious ceremony, performed by a person deemed able to sanctify marriage within that church. To be recognized by the state (civil) you must have a civil ceremony (the signing of the contract).


There were four gay couples married in a UU church in Pennsylvania not too long ago.

The church recognized the marriages, but the state didn't.

Somehow that just makes things even more twisted to me.

My church doesn't accept hate, fear, and ignorance, much less cling to tenuous definitions based on the aforementioned traits.

One thing that we were discussing today at a multi-church meeting was how there is a certain percentage of the congregation that I do not know whether they are gay or straight.

How beautiful is that?

It doesn't matter.....these are good people who are part of a loving, caring community that doesn't base their behavior or level of acceptance on sexual preference.

Yes, we ARE evolving!

Hallelujah!
 10/11/2008 10:19:49 PM · #41
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Perhaps, we could all just ignore a certain someone completely from now on eh? Every time someone responds to him, he wins.

Just a thought.


Well said.
 10/11/2008 11:21:57 PM · #42
This may be the unpopular thing to say but my feelings on gay marriage have changed this week. I had been sliding this way for a while but ... DAMN IT, I cannot mention politics now... anyway, a ... man... was debating a woman, yes... and his answer to a question, gave me the little nudge needed. He said, "marriage is a religious thing and the government has no business interacting with it" to paraphrase.

Anyway, I'm cool with no one agreeing with me, and I especially apologize if my new opinion on the matter in any way offends or hurts anyone here.

I now believe that marriage is a religious custom, such as baptism and confession are. I do not believe the state or government should have ever, assigned special privileges and benefits towards those sharing in a religious custom.

I honestly believe that any such privileges and legal benefits of partnership should have been a matter of civil unions, from the start, for all people, not just gay couples.

I believe gay couples should be able to express their devotion and love for each other, regardless of their faith. I also believe they should be entitled to the same benefits as any other human being. Religion should never and should never interfere with basic human rights, to love and be loved, to be a family, nor should the state.

So in a nut shell, marriages would remain a function of the church and controlled by the church. Marriages however would provide no benefit or legal recognition outside of the church or personally between the couple, their family, and friends.
Civil Unions would provide the benefits and legal recognition marriage used to, and both marriage and civil unions would be required to have the same effect as marriage does now, a recognition by the church, and by the state.

So, am I stupid to feel this way? Honest answers are more than welcome, but please don't kill me, I honestly mean no harm.
10/12/2008 03:06:39 AM · #43
Don't worry, I agree with ya :)
 10/12/2008 04:06:08 AM · #44
Seems to me (and I could be wrong - I'm getting old and the memory is definitely going) that the United States was founded on the separation of church and state and freedom of religion. At least those were two of the biggies. There was something about taxation as well. Anyway, what a god declares as marriage has no relevance on what a state (or union of states) declares, if the basic fundamentals upon which the country was founded still hold water. If two (or more) people wish to marry in the eyes of their church, then they must abide by that church's doctrine. They need not formalize their marriage with the state if they do not wish the benefits or responsibilities that such a union confers. This may well be the case with the polygamists in Utah, for instance. I would wager that the men in that community have only one wife "on paper" - on file with the state. The others are viewed by the state as "single", and in most instances, "single parents". (One wonders about tax benefits of that scheme, but that's another discussion.) Yet in the eyes of THEIR church, all of the wives are indeed "married".

Not sure of the relevance of the above, but just a thought I had. Thought I'd share. Carry on.
 10/12/2008 04:29:38 AM · #45
Originally posted by togtog:
This may be the unpopular thing to say but my feelings on gay marriage have changed this week. I had been sliding this way for a while but ... DAMN IT, I cannot mention politics now... anyway, a ... man... was debating a woman, yes... and his answer to a question, gave me the little nudge needed. He said, "marriage is a religious thing and the government has no business interacting with it" to paraphrase.

Anyway, I'm cool with no one agreeing with me, and I especially apologize if my new opinion on the matter in any way offends or hurts anyone here.

I now believe that marriage is a religious custom, such as baptism and confession are. I do not believe the state or government should have ever, assigned special privileges and benefits towards those sharing in a religious custom.

I honestly believe that any such privileges and legal benefits of partnership should have been a matter of civil unions, from the start, for all people, not just gay couples.

I believe gay couples should be able to express their devotion and love for each other, regardless of their faith. I also believe they should be entitled to the same benefits as any other human being. Religion should never and should never interfere with basic human rights, to love and be loved, to be a family, nor should the state.

So in a nut shell, marriages would remain a function of the church and controlled by the church. Marriages however would provide no benefit or legal recognition outside of the church or personally between the couple, their family, and friends.
Civil Unions would provide the benefits and legal recognition marriage used to, and both marriage and civil unions would be required to have the same effect as marriage does now, a recognition by the church, and by the state.

So, am I stupid to feel this way? Honest answers are more than welcome, but please don't kill me, I honestly mean no harm.


This is pretty much my position on this.. Churches should be able to do what they want, but that it wouldn't result in any /legal/ benefits.. If you want the benefits, you should get the state-organized civil-union, which should not be able to discriminate in /any/ way.

My problem in the 'gay marriage' thing has been that some gay couples have been wanting to 'force' churches to marry them .. (now, i may be mistaken, but i thought thats what i had read at some point - correct me if I'm wrong). Instead of pushing to get a civil union, these couples were going after the church to get married.. and well, of course the church didn't want to. I pretty much agree with the church refusing them (considering most religions quite frown upon gay people, it would be a wonder why they would want to be married there anyway), but they shouldn't have to go to the church to get married.. get that civil union (which /should/ be available to everyone, but i guess this is the tricky part.. this is only available ina few states, is that correct?) to make it legal, then you can do whatever kind of 'formal' ceremony you want to do to go with it imo..

And a side note, i'm an agnostic who beleive gay people are born that way (more and more proof of that has been coming up recently, not that i ever doubted it.. heck, there are gay animals.. it happens naturally all over the planet, and not just in humans -- oh side-side note.. you see that thing about a female shark giving birth to essentially her clone? no father! Nature.. will always find a way to supprise you!).
 10/12/2008 08:02:04 AM · #46
Originally posted by togtog:
This may be the unpopular thing to say but my feelings on gay marriage have changed this week. I had been sliding this way for a while but ... DAMN IT, I cannot mention politics now... anyway, a ... man... was debating a woman, yes... and his answer to a question, gave me the little nudge needed. He said, "marriage is a religious thing and the government has no business interacting with it" to paraphrase.

Anyway, I'm cool with no one agreeing with me, and I especially apologize if my new opinion on the matter in any way offends or hurts anyone here.

I now believe that marriage is a religious custom, such as baptism and confession are. I do not believe the state or government should have ever, assigned special privileges and benefits towards those sharing in a religious custom.

That's okay up to a point, but the problem arises when religions start to decide who can and cannot get married.

There has always been the various principles such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "We are all God's children"......"Except for you lot over there", and "We don't like you people or the way you live"......

So into the mix comes human prejudice and people's interpretation that they adhere to regardless of the effect it has on someone else with whose life they have NO business!

Yet they seem to think they can impose their standards on them.

Why? Who made them the protocol cops over something that is NOT their business nor has ANY effect whatsoever on their lives?

And they seem to have no compunction about acting in a way that is just plain inconsiderate or hurtful. They never seem to ask themselves how they would feel if someone told them that the way that they feel, and live, is immoral or wrong.

What about the compassion, consideration, and human decency that's supposed to be so much a part of ANY religion?????
Originally posted by togtog:
I honestly believe that any such privileges and legal benefits of partnership should have been a matter of civil unions, from the start, for all people, not just gay couples.

I believe gay couples should be able to express their devotion and love for each other, regardless of their faith. I also believe they should be entitled to the same benefits as any other human being. Religion should never and should never interfere with basic human rights, to love and be loved, to be a family, nor should the state.

The only problem is that although there are civil unions, at a local, the whole way up to federal level, civil unions do NOT have the same rights and privileges as a state sanctioned marriage. That's wrong, and is taking entirely too much time and trouble to become fair and equitable.

Originally posted by togtog:
So in a nut shell, marriages would remain a function of the church and controlled by the church. Marriages however would provide no benefit or legal recognition outside of the church or personally between the couple, their family, and friends.
Civil Unions would provide the benefits and legal recognition marriage used to, and both marriage and civil unions would be required to have the same effect as marriage does now, a recognition by the church, and by the state.

That's a really nice idea and I hope that it will become a reality for anyone wanting to be married.

I just hope that more churches will start to realize that gays are God's children too, that their lifestyle is not a choice, it's the way it is, and that we all should be able to marry the person we want to marry, regardless of where and how we hold our beliefs, and to support the ultimate commitment we want to make to our mate.

As an aside, there are at least four different churches that are opening their doors and their hearts to the gay community here in central Pennsylvania. The courts are also passing, and upholding discrimination and hate crime legislation.
 10/12/2008 08:44:54 AM · #47
As I pointed out earlier, marriages recognized by the state governments were allowed to be performed by the clergy for expediency - not everyone could get to a courthouse 200 years ago. This is where the problem started.

You can have a marriage recognized by a church but not by a state government. You can have a marriage recognized by the state government but not by a church. This is true today and has always been true. What the state governments have to do is take back the power for civil marriages from churches. Clergy should NOT be allowed to sign state contracts. It would be ridiculous to allow clergy to sanction business licenses and drivers licenses for the government; they should not be allowed to sanction marriage licenses.

Once the complete separation of the civil marriage contract from the religious marriage contract happens, people will be more accepting of civil same sex marriage. If you have to rename it all civil unions, so be it. Everyone who wants to enter a civil union contract with the state would have to go to the state to do it. As an aside,I also think this would lower the divorce rate.

A civil marriage is a legally binding contract. It is discrimination for the state to control whom enters a legally binding contract.
 10/12/2008 11:28:04 AM · #48
Originally posted by Refracted:
My problem in the 'gay marriage' thing has been that some gay couples have been wanting to 'force' churches to marry them .. (now, i may be mistaken, but i thought thats what i had read at some point - correct me if I'm wrong). Instead of pushing to get a civil union, these couples were going after the church to get married.

I haven't heard of this at all -- the push is completely (AFAIK) to change the way the state treats couples. That any change in the law would affect churches is (as they'd say in a previous century) a vicious canard.
 10/12/2008 11:55:19 AM · #49
togtog, I've long held the same view you just expressed on the issue and I believe it is one of the logical & well reasoned ways of looking at it, however, I was recently convinced that there are some critical problems with it too. I was just discussing all of this last week with a friend of mine who has been in a committed homosexual relationship for many years now. She was very upset with Biden's position on gay marriage in the debate, so I pointed out how Biden had actually parsed things very nicely in the way you outlined above.

Then she made an interesting point. She said, "Yea, but do you really believe the government will ever replace "marriage" with "civil unions" or mandate that "civil unions" must be made available to everyone with the same rights and protections afforded by "marriage"?" Her question gave me serious pause and now I'm not so sure I can stand by my previous argument that 'marriage should be a religious institution and civil union should be a state institution'.

My friend really helped me realize that the highest priority here is the civil liberties question: Should homosexual couples have the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples? If the answer is yes, then the state has an obligation to grant those rights through whatever government mechanisms are currently in place for heterosexuals.

The 'civil union' vs. 'marriage' question is a semantic one that can also be dealt with (although I suspect it may just be a red herring that would mostly evaporate at that point), but I see now that this civil unions argument just gives cover to cowardly politicians who won't really stand up and say, "Yes, gay couples must be guaranteed the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples have". The caveat about definitions that Biden offered just put's the burden on homosexual supporters to pass "civil union" laws in every part of the country before they can get their equal rights.
 10/14/2008 11:40:10 AM · #50
Look. This is not about religion, apart from the religious trying to suppress my relationship because it makes them queasy. Stop debating theology, stop debating minutiae of law, this is about everyday life.

I'm half of one of those pesky married gay couples. I did this completely without involving any church. I married to be LEGALLY married, as acknowledged by the STATE, for the rights and responsibilities that come with LEGAL marriage, and to bring our families together in mutual celebration THIS FRIDAY.

This debate has NOTHING to do with making any church do anything, despite the fears of those who claim otherwise. It's about treating homosexuals as full and equal citizens of the United States. That's it. End of story.

If Prop 8 passes, you as citizens, state, and country are telling me that I am not worthy of full citizenship. If it passes, you will legally prevent others like me from doing what I've just done without involving religion AT ALL, and there's a good chance you will destroy my existing LEGAL MARRIAGE. The ONLY thing that Prop 8 does is specifically eliminate a right I share with you TODAY by defining marriage in opposition to that right. That is the ONLY thing it does! READ IT! It's one sentence long for goodness sake!!!

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

That's it!!! That's the only thing it says! Nothing about religion, nothing about education, nothing about forcing anybody to do anything!

Those of you who would vote for Prop 8 better think long and hard about the reality your convictions will create for so many of your fellow would-be citizens, and the pain you will inflict because of it. It boggles my mind that you can be so vocal about wanting to protect marriage while casually destroying mine by revoking my rights with an unprecedented constitutional amendment.

VOTE NO ON 8

I am just like you and I would like to be treated in accordance with that belief.

Please don't let me down.

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 11:50:13.
Pages:   ... [266]
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 02:56:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 02:56:05 AM EDT.