Majority of Americans now support Gay Relationships

[the]

Tony Stark is even more ENTP in this one.

huh?

 

[slant]

I wish the title was

"Majority of Americans are now in gay relationships"

 

[DimensionX]

bah, I take time to make a reply and it gets paged straight away, how irritating lol.

 

[88chaz88]

Does this mean Satya gets to put down his pitchfork?

 

[NaeturVindur]

Religion is more of a set of socially acceptable rules for people to have to follow to fit in to the group so really whats acceptable by a religion could be seen as more of a summary of the groups opinions, saying religion is the reason why is kinda like saying we don't think this is acceptable because the majority deems it as such, of course it doesn't include everything just like any group's rules doesn't account for everything for example generic engineering genetic engineering wasn't around during the early days.

"Wisdom of repugnance" seems a little.....misanthropic, if you let everyones opinions get to you all that will happen is that you'll turn into something that they can easily outcast making something like your sexual orientation into your personal identity, for example don't be out spoken about if your gay or not but just use it as a passing everyday comment like if someone asks you "breasts or arse" say "pec's" if they seem to sneer or what ever just say "well, you asked" and shrug, if you can stand out with something that is seen as skillful, socially, people will come around and become more accepting to something that is frowned upon, look at Freddie Mercury for example, homosexual but an incredible performer and singer he became respected for his musical talent and the fact that he was gay was more of a side note, this made gay people not seem as bad, it counter acts the religious or social demonization.

That model of religion only really works if the religion is completely unorganized and held as fluid, or people allowed themselves to be very fluid in their religious identification. very few religions would count as that, and people don't do that. In order for your idea to work, people would have to say "I am this religion be cause I hold these beliefs." However, most say "I hold these beliefs because I am this religion." Therefore, some religions can cause people to be intolerant.

Also, I mostly like the second part, and can't argue against what I don't like (can't really put my finger on it).

 

[Norwich]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shai Gar
How many fingers do you have?

huh?????

Ha, ha....took me a minute. The answer to your question, 4 fingers and 1 thumb on each hand. Probably a good thing! With the ever increasing cost of horn polishing and tail sharpening, my wardrobe budget has suffered. Don't think I could afford to have my red satin, elbow length gloves altered to accommodate another digit. Which would be very sad, as they go so well with my red patten leather,five inch, stiletto pumps.

 

[Shai Gar]

actually i was wondering if what they say about relationships in norwich was true.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I'm surprised that only 52% of people surveyed think it's okay. Am wondering if their sample was skewed? If you surveyed 100 people I personally know, then I'd guess more than 52 would have said that homosexuality is not morally wrong. Probably more like 80-90, and the 10 who had a problem with it would be quite frankly the oldest (no offense) and most conservative.

But oh, well, I suppose the folks at Gallup know what they are doing. And 52% is pretty good!

Perhaps, but go somewhere like the bible belt then the opinions might be different, not trying to generalize that all religious groups consider homosexuality as immoral, but it has been demonstrated that many consider it highly unethical due to arguments based of the bible or other religious texts.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

An observation.

I don't think anyone who knows me on this forum will be surprised when I say that I am not in favour of gay marriage.

BUT the reason I am not in favour of it may shed some light on some religious objections. (I have no idea about Bible-belt christian, protestant christian, baptists or any of those - I'm Catholic).

My objection to gay marriage is in no way connected to questions of immorality/morality.

My objection is this:
The Catholic understanding of Marriage is that it is a unique, permanent relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising and educating children. That's right boys.... teleology. Whoot.

To call unions of men and women who have no intention of ever begetting children marriage contradicts the notion of marriage (and historically the western notion of marriage is almost completely identifiable as a religious concept). Similarly, to call same-sex unions 'marriage' is about as jarring as if someone were to call a restaurant meal 'the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.'

My question is: Why should the gay community want to call every permanent union of people by the name of a Sacrament?

If the question was over civil unions - there is nothing jarring about the notion. Why not focus the campaign to civily equalise the legal benefits of civil unions and marriages?............ And perhaps focus on moving the gay community's notion of their permanent unions away from the religious concept of marriage?

 

[Soulful]

Good.

 

[Daeledin]

My objection is this:
The Catholic understanding of Marriage is that it is a unique, permanent relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising and educating children. That's right boys.... teleology. Whoot.

I don't want to be the one to turn this into a debate thread. Although I just have to address this briefly. As a disclaimer I prefer to talk about a state or federal legal definition and function called marriage, separate and irregardless of religion.

If a couple who are incapable of having children get married, say they are sterile or too old to have them. Is that any reason to deny them marriage? Another example, my cousin is Catholic and has three wonderful children who I got to see this week since I'm home )) but due to health reasons had to have a hysterectomy. Now should her marriage be dissolved because she can no longer beget children?

What about adoption. Marriage as a state institution is a tried and true system for giving the best chance that a child will have two parents to watch over them when they are adopted from foster care. Gay marriage would help fostered children immensely in the country. I can't speak for all gay people because it is very understandable to have fears over the performance of two males or two females raising a child in society. Studies point it is safe and no different in the long run. My preference would just be to try it and see what happens.

If the question was over civil unions - there is nothing jarring about the notion. Why not focus the campaign to civilly equalize the legal benefits of civil unions and marriages?

I'd hate to bring up 'separate but equal' but it really makes me worry that if we have two legal systems in place for something that is supposed to be the same there is too much possibility of the 'gay' one being altered to be less than the 'straight' one.



Anyway. I know you were talking about the Catholic position on marriage. So why would gays want to call every permanent union of people by the name of a Sacrament? It's because that is what it is legally called. In my eyes once you make a legal action called 'marriage' it is no longer a religious operator but a legal one.

Either way. Happy news to me. Means we're that much closer to finally getting what we want. I'll take it with a grain of salt though. Like Raccoon mentioned it varies greatly based on the geography.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

If a couple who are incapable of having children get married, say they are sterile or too old to have them. Is that any reason to deny them marriage? Another example, my cousin is Catholic and has three wonderful children who I got to see this week since I'm home )) but due to health reasons had to have a hysterectomy. Now should her marriage be dissolved because she can no longer beget children?

Catholic positions, as best I know them:
Marriage is indissoluble.
Having oneself sterilised excludes one from forming Catholic marriages.
Genetic/age sterility doesn't exclude.

What about adoption. Marriage as a state institution is a tried and true system for giving the best chance that a child will have two parents to watch over them when they are adopted from foster care. Gay marriage would help fostered children immensely in the country. I can't speak for all gay people because it is very understandable to have fears over the performance of two males or two females raising a child in society. Studies point it is safe and no different in the long run. My preference would just be to try it and see what happens.

Adoption is an option to those in civil unions.

I'd hate to bring up 'separate but equal' but it really makes me worry that if we have two legal systems in place for something that is supposed to be the same there is too much possibility of the 'gay' one being altered to be less than the 'straight' one.

That's the challenge of the fight for legal equality.

Anyway. I know you were talking about the Catholic position on marriage. So why would gays want to call every permanent union of people by the name of a Sacrament? It's because that is what it is legally called. In my eyes once you make a legal action called 'marriage' it is no longer a religious operator but a legal one.

Even though religious marriages are a Church matter, they are a reality in society and are therefore recognised as a reality by the law. The challenge should be to establish that non-religious unions are a reality and have the law recognise them as well.

If the state/civil power historically has blurred the state/church line - so that religious unions are treated differently (in some countries for worse, in some countries for better) the hypocrisy needs to be called.

 

[Daeledin]

We pretty much agree on the same stuff Flavus, and I like that. Thanks for the info on Catholic marriages: didn't know that. I also know adoption is something that is supposed to be granted by civil unions. It's just that at the moment it is a state decision on what to include as rights in a civil union. So while it seems like one of the most obvious rights to include; there is no guarantee that it will be included. Of course there is the issue that you can only count the states that do have unions on two hands.

Then beyond that we go into more legal territory with a notorious act called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which recognizes the difference between civil unions and marriages and will deny federal rights of marriage to the state civil unions. Fact check has a succinct description on those differences. Saves me the trouble of diving in myself.

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html


Really it would all work out for the best if the system worked as one function. Legally why not call marriages a domestic partnership or a civil union and then let the participants' religions take over the religious and ceremonial parts? That way couples get their license, state, and federal rights with marriage and then from there do whatever. The benefit of fighting for legal marriage with the same name is that it is already in place and all that would have to be amended would just be the definition.

I know quite a few gays want the white wedding and I wish them luck in convincing their local church to hold a ceremony for them. Gay church marriages are a battle I have no interest in fighting because we all know it will get messy between the vast denominations and view points. I'm against the government forcing religions to host gay ceremonies if they refuse. Separation of church and state is a two way street after all.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Perhaps there needs to be a register of approved permanent civil unions. Each type should be registered and have its distinguishing characteristics/requirements noted. For example: Civil unions tantum (civil unions with no qualifying characteristics); Catholic unions (distinguishing characteristics/requirements: must be witnessed by a Catholic priest, between a man & woman, etc.); Episcopalian unions; Jewish unions etc...

That way diversity would actually be recognised and respected by the state - AND there would simply be one legal qualifying condition for rights/benefits: registration of the type of union and the fullfilment of its requirements.