Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
I'm in a state that is currently debating whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Can I actually be against same-sex marriage, cause I kinda think I am?

I believe that same sex marriage is just as relevant for trans people as it is for gays and lesbians. The are states in the US that do not allow trans people to change their birth certificate, even after SRS. So a fully transitioned trans guy in Ohio for instance can only marry another man, even if it results in a gay marriage! Same for a trans woman. There have been some very negative rulings against trans people and their marriages, where they are often treated as deceivers or cheating families, etc.

There will be a day that comes and you are transitioned and you won't want to feel alone, and then it will matter to you personally.

My thoughts are either legalize all marriage, and let same gendered people get married or outlaw the institution of marriage altogether. It's not just the marriage, it's inheritance, terminally ill and wanting a partner by my side, tax benefits, etc. it's not like the people who get married for the purposes of procreating are doing a great job. There are more single parent families now, and generally mothers, than in the history of the world. There are whole tv shows and private detectives who specialize I catching cheating spouses, and the current divorce rate amongst heterosexual is around 50%.

How can it be that 2 straight people who get married and never have any children pay less in taxes because of the marriage, but 2 gay men will pay more? That is simply not equitable.

If you ask me, the shape of the family is changing and evolving and marriage is becoming less and less relevant anyways, except in the issue of taxation, retirement and end of life decision making. Women today have children from multiple partners and there is no family, only a long trail of child support. Nobody seems to care about marriage except for those who really want to be together and a handful of religious zealots.

I live in Massachusetts and we have had gay marriage longer than any other state and the sky never fell, no one has ever asked to marry their dog, and nobody seems to even care anymore? So why worry?

Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
I'm in a state that is currently debating whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Can I actually be against same-sex marriage, cause I kinda think I am? I mean I feel bad about that fact, but I believe that marriage, as a religious part of my faith, is only between a man and a woman. (I myself am a lesbian and do dream of getting married to another girl with both of us in beautiful white dresses, but I understand it wouldn't be a real marriage, and I'm ok with that.) Just wanted to see what other people on here think. Please don't hate, but feel free to expand my perception! 

I understand though that the keyword in that above paragraph I wrote is "part of my faith." Not everybody is of the same faith and therefore it would be wrong for the government to limit marriage to specific criteria. However, the current argument against same-sex marriage that I sorta believe in is that if the law in my state is passed redefining marriage, those who hold onto the traditional idea of marriage will be seen as bigots and haters--as I pry am being seen right now!

Why do you feel your religious beliefs are so correct that they are better than anyone else's?

Why do you feel you can impose your religious beliefs onto others in this way?

We all have the right to our own individual feelings on this issue.  And everyones opinion is of equal value.

We also have the right to our own interpretation of Scripture, some Churches are against same sex marriage because of how they interpret Scripture, others have no problem with same sex marriage.

Quote from: spacial on January 08, 2013, 10:30:09 AM
Why do you feel your religious beliefs are so correct that they are better than anyone else's?

I think it makes sense to think our own beliefs are more correct than the beliefs of others who differ. Otherwise it wouldn't be your belief, right? That doesn't mean our beliefs won't change over time with new evidence or arguments, of course.

Quote
Why do you feel you can impose your religious beliefs onto others in this way?

THAT is where I have the beef. I feel we're all entitled to our beliefs no matter how "whacky" but we aren't entitled to impose them on others.

Quote from: dalebert on January 08, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
I think it makes sense to think our own beliefs are more correct than the beliefs of others who differ. Otherwise it wouldn't be your belief, right? That doesn't mean our beliefs won't change over time with new evidence or arguments, of course.

THAT is where I have the beef. I feel we're all entitled to our beliefs no matter how "whacky" but we aren't entitled to impose them on others.

Back at my old Catholic High school the head priest said it was his right to make people know and follow the truth because why should we just let people go a stray.

This line was obviously his opinion but pretty much tells you why such impostion of beliefs has occured even in the 20th century.

We have couples being married by Elvis impersonators.

Personally I have no objection to people being married by Elvis, some guy who thinks he can forgive sin, Muslims, anyone.

By what right does anyone, impose their religious views onto those seeking marriage equality.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on January 08, 2013, 10:39:13 AM
We all have the right to our own individual feelings on this issue.  And everyones opinion is of equal value.

We also have the right to our own interpretation of Scripture, some Churches are against same sex marriage because of how they interpret Scripture, others have no problem with same sex marriage.

Deepest apologise, I an seeking to pursue a point of religious freedom, which we all seek to enjoy. Not and never suggesting anyone shoulc not hold a differing view point.

But thank you for highlighting the possible ambiguity. I am most grateful and will attempt to be more careful in my wording.

Originally, this post ended up in the wrong thread, so I'm returning it to the thread I meant to put it in:

I just want to thank everyone for all the answers. You've truly helped me a lot here! Sorry if I've blown anyones mind lol. I know I have a rather strange thinking process sometimes! I feel that this was a good topic to start, and a good discussion.

Lol. Sorry!

I believe that my answer may be a little different from most and my offend some and hopefully edify others. Not meant to offend though.

All throughout the word of God the Lord Jesus is shown through allegories, similtudes, parables and types and shadows as the Husband and Head of his bride, the church. The second Adam that is a King and will not commit the sin of harkening unto the voice of his wife. he has all say and not the church. That is why he sent back his Spirit, the Holy Ghost to lead and guide her.

These same types and shadows can be seen in revelation. Paul wrote of them in Ephesians making the marriage very clear.

I really couldn't care less about secular marriages. Sadly however many mock that which is sacred in Christianity pertaining to the covenant of marriage with the Lord as it is written he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Not non-believers alone but Christians as well.

Most straight cisgender men cannot get beyond their ego to say they are the betrothed virgin (in Christ) and bride of Jesus awaiting his return, deliverance, rescue and rapture. But in a spiritual sense that is what both male and female Christians are. His betrothed and one day bride adorned in his righteousness, or white linen. Personally I am his berothed and therefore that is why I do believe in a male and female marriage. That is also why I feel I may know how women feel to a certain extent.

Here in Illinois we have a civil union law that gives same sex couples full rights as heterosexual married couples. Makes me wonder why push for marriage. More so when a thousand march for the marriage right but only a hundred or so get married when it is passed.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?

After all, when you look at all of the men of God that were types and shadows of Jesus none were gay.
Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Samson, Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Paul, Peter, Aquila and Priscilla, and countless others who were men and women of God were all straight.
Sadly many haggle over what it takes to be damned in the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Few stop to think that when each of these men the Lord referred to were saved they were examples of straight marriages.

I may enrage some but that's just what I believe to answer the original question. I don't want to offend any but by the same token don't want to deny the Lord or the word of God. It's not in my place to judge anyone or hate anyone. I would to God that all who call themselves Christians were saved. Even non-believers as well. But sadly many today stand behind pulpits and couldn't care less about the souls of those listening. Some just want to be seen and some just want to get rich. Few really care.

If any are offended I am sorry. But that is my answer to the original poster's question.

May God bless.

Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
I believe that my answer may be a little different from most and my offend some and hopefully edify others. Not meant to offend though.

All throughout the word of God the Lord Jesus is shown through allegories, similtudes, parables and types and shadows as the Husband and Head of his bride, the church. The second Adam that is a King and will not commit the sin of harkening unto the voice of his wife. he has all say and not the church. That is why he sent back his Spirit, the Holy Ghost to lead and guide her.

These same types and shadows can be seen in revelation. Paul wrote of them in Ephesians making the marriage very clear.

I really couldn't care less about secular marriages. Sadly however many mock that which is sacred in Christianity pertaining to the covenant of marriage with the Lord as it is written he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Not non-believers alone but Christians as well.

Most straight cisgender men cannot get beyond their ego to say they are the betrothed virgin (in Christ) and bride of Jesus awaiting his return, deliverance, rescue and rapture. But in a spiritual sense that is what both male and female Christians are. His betrothed and one day bride adorned in his righteousness, or white linen. Personally I am his berothed and therefore that is why I do believe in a male and female marriage. That is also why I feel I may know how women feel to a certain extent.

Here in Illinois we have a civil union law that gives same sex couples full rights as heterosexual married couples. Makes me wonder why push for marriage. More so when a thousand march for the marriage right but only a hundred or so get married when it is passed.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?

After all, when you look at all of the men of God that were types and shadows of Jesus none were gay.
Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Samson, Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Paul, Peter, Aquila and Priscilla, and countless others who were men and women of God were all straight.
Sadly many haggle over what it takes to be damned in the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Few stop to think that when each of these men the Lord referred to were saved they were examples of straight marriages.

I may enrage some but that's just what I believe to answer the original question. I don't want to offend any but by the same token don't want to deny the Lord or the word of God. It's not in my place to judge anyone or hate anyone. I would to God that all who call themselves Christians were saved. Even non-believers as well. But sadly many today stand behind pulpits and couldn't care less about the souls of those listening. Some just want to be seen and some just want to get rich. Few really care.

If any are offended I am sorry. But that is my answer to the original poster's question.

May God bless.

Del you don't offend me at all. But you have not addressed my situation?

I have said this before in other threads. The ridiculous part of banning same sex marriage is typified by my situation. In Australia same sex marriage is illegal, at the moment. I've been married for 30 years. When I get SRS I am recognized as female sex.  To be so recognized I have to divorce my wife, since same sex marriage is illegal.

What has changed in my 30 odd years of marriage? Nothing.

A you know I walk my own path, but my question remains. I will never know a gods mind but I reckon it is scratching its head of this example.

I love my wife, I care for her, she is totally dependent upon her carers and I, as she it totally disabled. I have been and never will be unfaithful to her. I have broken no vows.

Cindy,
Quite frankly I would have to say that in your case that law is rather foolish under your circumstances.
Have a good day kiddo.

I have to admit, I do personally and privately find trans people who oppose same-sex marriage to be a bit silly. Because a) it's surprisingly difficult to nail down a law against it that encompasses the possibility of legally changing sex (ie, the person who has a passport and driver's license with one gender marker and Social Security says something different - can they marry *either* gender, are they not allowed to marry anybody, or what?) and b) in the United States, the ONLY federally valid same-sex marriages that I am aware of include a transitioned partner.

Like Cindy, I found myself in a same-sex marriage when we had previously been recorded as a heterosexual couple. Unlike Cindy, my country's government recognizes that marriage as fully valid, despite the fact that it's now a SSM, which of course throws a monkey wrench into the idea that it cannot *ever* happen in the US under the current laws.

I was also going to say what Zumbagirl did, but now I'll just quote her. "I [work] in Massachusetts and we have had gay marriage longer than any other state and the sky never fell, no one has ever asked to marry their dog, and nobody seems to even care anymore? So why worry?" I actually live in CT, though, but that state also legalized SSM before my wife transitioned. What that means is that neither state is pressuring her to prove she's "really" one gender or the other; the state doesn't care. Same-sex marriage in both states removes a remarkable amount of stress. Both for us in a pre-transition marriage, and for her if hypothetically she ever wanted to marry again.  She does not have to fight over whether she can marry anybody, or what defines her gender for those purposes, or whether the state can intervene at any point and declare that (no matter which gender marker she/they chose!) she's a liar and a fake and invalidate her marriage and take away her kids/inheritance/other rights.

Quote from: blueconstancy on January 11, 2013, 08:32:13 AM
Like Cindy, I found myself in a same-sex marriage when we had previously been recorded as a heterosexual couple. Unlike Cindy, my country's government recognizes that marriage as fully valid, despite the fact that it's now a SSM, which of course throws a monkey wrench into the idea that it cannot *ever* happen in the US under the current laws.

There's also this story, coming out of Arizona. Short version, a judge being unwilling to grant a divorce to a couple who married as different-sex but are now same-sex. Judge claiming since he can't recognize the marriage as valid under his state's statutes, he doesn't have the basis to grant a divorce, in effect locking a same-sex couple into marriage. I'm waiting for the judge's head to explode, but that's not how judges and lawyers seem to operate.

Elspeth : I've seen that one (whatever people think of Beattie in general, that sucks royally) and it makes *my* head want to explode. How on Earth can anyone say "you're not married enough to divorce, but too married to be allowed to re-marry" with a straight face?! It's like a logic black hole.

(Divorce gets awkward for cis same-sex couples as well, if they've moved away from the precise state where they contracted their marriage... but that's a whole new level of ridiculous.)

Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
Makes me wonder why push for marriage. More so when a thousand march for the marriage right but only a hundred or so get married when it is passed.

Maybe there are 100 people who want to get married and 900 people that are so mad at your comic book view of the world that they will take to the streets to help those 100 people.

Conversely what about white people who marched with blacks for equality. They sure didn't stand to gain anything.

What about people who protect animals? They are not gaining anything personal.

I really dislike the way religion takes away critical thinking from decent people and replaces it instead with child like views of the world.

Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?

I was married in a Jewish ceremony (which is technically a purely civil ceremony, even though some prayers were said). Jesus was nowhere in it. In the eyes of the law, it was still a marriage. The State has no say in putting Jesus into any civil marriage. No one advocating same-sex marriages is asking for this, nor could it be done even if they wanted it to be done... that would be up to religious authorities, some of whom apparently don't read the Bible the way you do, while others do. Laws of the State have no say in that.

We do still have a separation of church and state according to the Constitution, much as some people have tried to undercut that principle.

My marriage is a civil marriage and I'm Australian there is no link between religion and law in Australia. They are totally separate.

I have no problems at all in leaving religion out of everything.

Just a quick add on. I know that we can get upset and stirred by this topic but let us keep it a mature debate. Del is a deeply religious man. I respect that, even though I have no concept of why he is; it is as alien to me as being a tree. But he is willing to debate his views in a civil way and we need to respect that view and to debate in the same manner.

I have absolutely no problem if someone wants their marriage sanctified by their god.  Even as a pagan, we have a "jumping the broom" as part of the ceremony.

But if I wish to get married to another woman, how would that change another's marriage.  In America, civil partnerships and domestic partnerships do not get the same benefits that a "Traditional" marriage does. 

And that is the heart of the same-sex marriage debate is about. 

The primary objection to a same-sex civil union* in the US instead is that those would not be automatically recognized at the federal level, which strips away a lot of the legal rights of marriage. It's moot at the moment, since neither is SSM recognized - but eventually if federal law changes it might be, leaving civil-unioned couples in the cold. Basically, the catch is that it might be perniciously difficult to make sure that all the laws which apply to "marriage" also cover same-sex civil unions, at which point it's not really an argument about semantics anymore.

My guess as an amateur studier of linguistics is that eventually people in general would start referring to same-sex civil unions as "marriage," but personally I'm fine with not actually legislating that term. Similarly, I have no issues whatsoever with religious organizations and/or religious people defining "marriage" for themselves, and would be delighted to allow them the same leeway I wish to be granted.


*to differentiate between "civil union granted instead of marriage to a same-sex couple" as opposed to "marriage contracted only civilly, without religion" (which I also had).

I respect Del's rights to his beliefs.

I was merely pointing out that the legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the US do not and constitutionally are prohibited from having any say in, influence upon or relationship to particular religious beliefs or practices.

There are already religions in the US that endorse same-sex marriages, and there are people who would be offended to be thought less serious about their religion (like the two lesbian women who have been rabbis for my ex's present congregation) because they endorse the efforts to prove the bias and unconstitutionality of interfering with same-sex couple's rights to civil marriages on equal terms to marriage as defined under civil law not as it may be defined by anyone's personal religious beliefs or the positions that religious leaders may espouse.

The current legal conflict is one about civil marriages. It has no relevance to what any particular sect or religious institution claims as their interpretation of whatever scriptures they consider to be relevant when it comes to a religious covenant, or the different notions various religions have about marriage, which are far from a monolith, and which are mutually incompatible if you take a look at those beliefs. Mormons, for instance, though they try not to draw attention to it, still believe that marriages are not until death do us part, but are for eternity, and most will admit, when pressed, that they technically still believe in polygamy, they just assume it will be taken care of in the afterlife, as long as civil authorities do not recognize that practice.

It would be unconstitutional for any state in the US or for the US government to, for instance, insist that any religion perform or endorse same-sex marriages, just as it is a violation of the separation clause to allow any religion to insist that federal or state civil marriage laws should reflect their particular beliefs.

Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM

Here in Illinois we have a civil union law that gives same sex couples full rights as heterosexual married couples. Makes me wonder why push for marriage.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?

Because some LGBT people are Christians or spiritual. Myself included. If I would like to be married why do I need to kick Jesus out of it? What gives straight people the moral authority to "invite Jesus" to a wedding but LGBT people cannot?  There is nothing in the Bible...utterly NOTHING that states Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

QuoteAfter all, when you look at all of the men of God that were types and shadows of Jesus none were gay.

2 Samuel 1:26  "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." David weeping over the death of Jonathan.  Sounds pretty gay to me.

Also, how do you know no one was gay or bisexual at all in the entire Bible? Many notable Biblical Scholars in the both the Jewish and Christian camps would def disagree with you.

QuoteI may enrage some but that's just what I believe to answer the original question. I don't want to offend any but by the same token don't want to deny the Lord or the word of God. It's not in my place to judge anyone or hate anyone. I would to God that all who call themselves Christians were saved. Even non-believers as well. But sadly many today stand behind pulpits and couldn't care less about the souls of those listening. Some just want to be seen and some just want to get rich. Few really care.

I care...but I don't use my pulpit to bully homosexuals or tell lgbt people they are doing something wrong. That's bullying and it's judging people. 

I preach the love of God and grace none of us have earned but given to us freely as a gift. I preached equality...I show examples how Jesus could care less about one's position in life when he healed or forgave...he cared about their heart and their faith.

I preach God's love. I don't preach that God is upset with LGBT people or hurt or believe we are off the track. To me, that is horrible theology and it's a type of bigotry and this bigotry is more dangerous because Preachers push a brand of religion to make their prejudices and bigotry more legit.

It's horrible...and I thank God every day more and more pastors are preaching TRUE acceptance no matter one's sexual or gender orientation. Hopefully, there will be a day with judging people based on their sexuality will be a very small minority.

Jesus does not discriminate. He says to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus never withheld his healing power based on any type of gender, social class, or any form of sexual orientation.

Christians who say LGBT is sinful or LGBT cannot have marriage equality, in my religious opinion is bigoted and shallow. And people in the Church wonders why their churches are growing small and closing their doors? It's because of some of their theological practices of intolerance.