Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage - Page 3

Drolefille · #31 07-11-2006, 05:17 PM

The point is that the government allowing gay marriage does nothing to indoctrinate your children. In reality it doesn't affect you. If Bob and Joe want to get married, it does not harm nor help your life. Why then, would you hinder them?

shinerbock · #32 07-11-2006, 05:19 PM

How would it not, it is giving a stamp of approval to that way of life. As I said before I don't like the situation we're in. If I were around when the government started recognizing and regulating marriage, I'd have probably claimed that to be a violation of church and state. Unfortunately we are now in the position that the two are too intertwined to be realistically seperated, and a government recognition of gay marriage would send a message that I and a large amount of Americans are uncomfortable with. Thus my only solution would be to leave it to the states.

Drolefille · #33 07-11-2006, 05:23 PM

Even something like civil unions? What message does it send? The same one that was sent when ruled it was ok for a black man to marry a white woman without being lynched? This does not influence religious marriages whatsoever. In fact I'd prefer to have all civil marriages be called civil unions and leave the word marriage to religions.

It isn't "approval" You can watch an interracial couple walk down the street and disapprove, that doesn't mean you should make it illegal.

shinerbock · #34 07-11-2006, 05:26 PM

Whatever my feelings regarding interracial marriage, it is still a man and a woman. Now I would be more open to civil unions, something that gave them them the benefits they desired without the traditional term of marriage. Now, I don't know that I would vote for it, but I would be more comfortable with it.

Drolefille · #35 07-11-2006, 05:36 PM

So it's just the term you can't live with? What if you and your wife signed a Civil Union certificate while getting your church wedding? Would that be wrong?

shinerbock · #36 07-11-2006, 05:41 PM

AXI, well you're right, I don't know that it does, but it does provide it with legitimacy.

Drole, yes, it mainly is the terminology. But it is also the term and tradition combined with the government display of approval, or acceptance. As I've stated earlier, I wish we were in a country that simply did civil unions, leaving recognition of marriage up to the church. However, we're not in that situation.

DeltAlum · #37 07-11-2006, 06:24 PM

I'm sorry I can't take the time at the moment to read the entire thread, so apologies are offered it this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that marriage is not a religious institution in total -- otherwise, why do we recognize marriages performed by judges or justices of the peace?

It seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is somewhat of a smokescreen hiding a prejudice in some religions against gay people -- not them being married.

If not, why would any church be against a gay couple being married in a civil ceremony -- one not performed by the church?

shinerbock · #38 07-11-2006, 06:40 PM

I think the problem they, and I, have is that there is no modern day difference between a church performed marriage and that of the state. Just as modern Christians are discouraged because of the high divorce rate, they also do not like the idea of gay marriage. They feel it cheapens a sacred vow they take very seriously.

SOPi_Jawbreaker · #39 07-11-2006, 06:41 PM

The issue is not a religious issue. Gay couples can be joined together in religious ceremonies in certain churches/denominations. So the issue is a secular/government/legality issue...whether or not gay unions (whatever name you want to give them) should be legally recognized and carry with them the benefits that straight couples take for granted...such as knowing that if you die, your children and your house and your life insurance benefits will not be taken away from your spouse and given to your "closest" relative (even if that relative is someone who hates you, beat you up, disowned you, kicked you out, etc. for your orientation).

SOPi_Jawbreaker · #40 07-11-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think the problem they, and I, have is that there is no modern day difference between a church performed marriage and that of the state. Just as modern Christians are discouraged because of the high divorce rate, they also do not like the idea of gay marriage. They feel it cheapens a sacred vow they take very seriously.

Oh yes, and Michael Jackson's two sham marriages, Britney Spears' 55-hour "Ooops" Vegas wedding, and Anna Nicole's golddigger marriage didn't cheapen the sacredness of marriage at all.

shinerbock · #41 07-11-2006, 06:59 PM

What a logical response. Didn't I mention divorce? Did you not hear the uprising about Britney Spears' lack of respect for marriage and the example it sets?

AKA_Monet · #42 07-11-2006, 08:16 PM

shinerbock,

Some of your statements lead me to think you've read Dr. Dobson's Marriage Under Fire.

Are your thoughts and statements coming from this book as well as others? Or are they all your own ideas that you have been sermonized to from your belief system?

There is no value judgement here, I am just asking...

shinerbock · #43 07-11-2006, 08:52 PM

No, I have not read Dr. Dobson's book. I am familiar with Focus on The Family however. As a politically active person who loves the Constitution, I find their views to generally be a bit more religiously motivated than I prefer. That being said, I usually agree with at least their side on an issue, but only on a up-down vote level.

macallan25 · #44 07-11-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOPi_Jawbreaker

Oh yes, and Michael Jackson's two sham marriages, Britney Spears' 55-hour "Ooops" Vegas wedding, and Anna Nicole's golddigger marriage didn't cheapen the sacredness of marriage at all.

Your logic is stunning.

SOPi_Jawbreaker · #45 07-11-2006, 10:14 PM

I could pay you the same compliment about a lot of your posts.