You have every right to recognize marriage as between a man and woman in your faith. The government has no right to force any religion to recognize marriage performed under any other faith (re: first amendment), however, as long as the marriage is performed under the law of a state, the state has a duty to recognize it for tax purposes, partnership benefits, estates, etc.

If two consenting adults want to get married, it doesn't matter what my "opinion" is on it.....they are not in the least bit harming anyone else or infringing on anyone elses rights. My "opinion" does not matter. I'm going to live my life regardless of other peoples approval, homosexuals should have that right as well. If I or anyone else doesn't like....well, no one said freedom was easy.

Good point....

Sruffin, it seems to me that your issue is with the definition of "marriage" even though you didn't expressly say that. Is that correct? If so I say again, society evolves. Marriage has meant a lot of things throughout the ages. It has been a transference of property (the woman) far more often and for far longer than it ever had anything to do with love. It has been banned to blacks completely in this country just a few hundred years ago. It was banned to interracial couples in America as recently as 1967. Did they have to change the definition of marriage when blacks were allowed to marry? What about when interracial marriages were made legal?

Don't try saying it's different because those were still marriages between men and women. There were a lot of arguments about it back then, some citing Biblical references, as to why marriage was only for whites and later why it wasn't for interracial couples. Just because we're now talking about gays that doesn't change the definition anymore than we had to change the definition of "Army" when DADT was repealed.

And the wonderful thing about the way you argue a your case is that you can make me total rethink everything and not call me an idiot or ignorant while doing so. I greatly appreciate that.

I think that now that you have stated your case (above) I do believe that it is more of a definition issue with me. Marriage, to me of course, is a sacred union/joining/coming together before God of a man and woman that loves each other unconditionally, with a love that transcends time.

I am beginning to agree with you that marriage has evolved over time. You are beginning to win me over. However, I still believe what I believe about God and what He calls marriage to be. I'm sorry, I just can't not believe what He says.

I think I am finally getting what you are saying.

I'll just say that it's important to remember that there is a difference between making personal choices based on religion and legislating your choices for everyone else. That distinction is lost on many, but I think you are starting to realize that it's really important to realize that while you may not think a religious institution SHOULD perform marriages for homosexual couples, there is a difference between that and saying in law that this cannot happen.

You have every right to recognize marriage as between a man and woman in your faith. The government has no right to force any religion to recognize marriage performed under any other faith (re: first amendment), however, as long as the marriage is performed under the law of a state, the state has a duty to recognize it for tax purposes, partnership benefits, estates, etc.

To me the entire question of equal rights for LGBT in general boils down to one thing:

If you accept that gays are born the way they are, then there is no conflict on any of these questions--just like you would not think to question the rights of those who are born with different colored eyes, or different colored skin.

If you feel that being gay is a "lifestyle choice", then it's possible to at least see a logic behind the "anti gay" argument.

However, IMO, the overwhelming evidence also puts that argument in the "flat earth" category.

The idea that large groups of people would so vociferously fight to deny fellow human beings their basic dignity is nothing short of appalling. The obsession that conservatives have with other people's sexual behaviors is grotesquely perverse.

Basic human rights cannot be subject to neurotic fears.

I think the whole "being born that way" line of reasoning is really just kind of a distraction. I don't think it matters at all. It really only makes a difference if we assume that being homosexual is somehow not equivalent to being heterosexual. The two are really the same except that genders are flipped.

So, if we say we're born a particular way it applies to both. If we say that it's a choice, then fine. It's a choice. Why is one choice being giving preferential treatment under the law in that case? Or more importantly, why is one being punished?

I'm sure we can all list the likely answers to that, but none of them pass a rational basis test.

It really only makes a difference if we assume that being homosexual is somehow not equivalent to being heterosexual. The two are really the same except that genders are flipped.

Sruffin, it seems to me that your issue is with the definition of "marriage" even though you didn't expressly say that. Is that correct? If so I say again, society evolves. Marriage has meant a lot of things throughout the ages. It has been a transference of property (the woman) far more often and for far longer than it ever had anything to do with love. It has been banned to blacks completely in this country just a few hundred years ago. It was banned to interracial couples in America as recently as 1967. Did they have to change the definition of marriage when blacks were allowed to marry? What about when interracial marriages were made legal?

Don't try saying it's different because those were still marriages between men and women. There were a lot of arguments about it back then, some citing Biblical references, as to why marriage was only for whites and later why it wasn't for interracial couples. Just because we're now talking about gays that doesn't change the definition anymore than we had to change the definition of "Army" when DADT was repealed.

And the wonderful thing about the way you argue a your case is that you can make me total rethink everything and not call me an idiot or ignorant while doing so. I greatly appreciate that.

I think that now that you have stated your case (above) I do believe that it is more of a definition issue with me. Marriage, to me of course, is a sacred union/joining/coming together before God of a man and woman that loves each other unconditionally, with a love that transcends time.

I am beginning to agree with you that marriage has evolved over time. You are beginning to win me over. However, I still believe what I believe about God and what He calls marriage to be. I'm sorry, I just can't not believe what He says.

I think I am finally getting what you are saying.

I'll just say that it's important to remember that there is a difference between making personal choices based on religion and legislating your choices for everyone else. That distinction is lost on many, but I think you are starting to realize that it's really important to realize that while you may not think a religious institution SHOULD perform marriages for homosexual couples, there is a difference between that and saying in law that this cannot happen.

You have every right to recognize marriage as between a man and woman in your faith. The government has no right to force any religion to recognize marriage performed under any other faith (re: first amendment), however, as long as the marriage is performed under the law of a state, the state has a duty to recognize it for tax purposes, partnership benefits, estates, etc.

Thank you very much! I can not explain how much I appreciate this perspective!

Azdak, I know you're speaking about the religious right, but not all conservatives behave that way or believe the things you mentioned. I voted against this ban, and I consider myself a conservative.

LOTS of conservatives in my own little sphere are offended by any kind of segregation laws being enacted. Lots of us consider ourselves conservative because of how we'd prefer the government to spend our money. Not because of any religious ideas.

Duly noted. (and, yes, it was one of those generalizations used for "literary effect"). Although I would say, from my experience, you are either in the minority or belong to a more "libertarian" subset of conservatives.

Azdak, I know you're speaking about the religious right, but not all conservatives behave that way or believe the things you mentioned. I voted against this ban, and I consider myself a conservative.

LOTS of conservatives in my own little sphere are offended by any kind of segregation laws being enacted. Lots of us consider ourselves conservative because of how we'd prefer the government to spend our money. Not because of any religious ideas.

Duly noted. (and, yes, it was one of those generalizations used for "literary effect"). Although I would say, from my experience, you are either in the minority or belong to a more "libertarian" subset of conservatives.

Thanks:flowerforyou:

Likely an accurate assessment. I know I am in the minority, but I don't think it's as tiny of a minority as one may imagine...Hence the term fiscal conservative. I'm in favor of a lot of liberal social policies, but I wish the gov't would be less intrusive in our lives, and spend our money more frugally, behave more like the private sector. That's why I vote on the right mostly. The religious aspect is NOT associated with my political views, and a lot of times the religiously-based stances the Republican party holds make me cringe. But I can't turn into a tax&spend liberal, since I believe that spells economic doom for our country.

I too am way impressed with this debate Makes me feel all fuzzy when we domanstrate how to do it well

Always an interesting individual decision. Since, unless we could somehow make ourselves "emperor of the world" with absolute powers, we are unlikely to find any party or candidate who agrees with 100% of our views, every individual has to make their own "priority list" of what issues are most important and what tip the scales.

For the record, I think it is a myth that republicans are in any way "fiscally conservative", but that's a discussion for another topic.

I have never understood how taking rights away from any specific group strengthens the opposing position.
My hope is that legalizing gay marriage will make the sanctitiy of marriage even more precious. When people see how hard others fight for something that they take for granted...maybe they will wake up and stop treating marriage like sport.

I like the way you think!

Me too!! BondBomb doesn't post a whole lot here, but when she does, she's got good stuff to say. :happy: