Poll: Gay marriage

[the]

Wow...

While I've been on the road and gone for 24 hours - I've been mulling over this thread. I am just now reading the posts after mine.

You guys must be an amalgam of what goes on in the US Congress. Bickering and bickering and posturing for your own agendas...

You know....we could all get together and propose a plan of action here in the US and then Australia may follow.

I came up with these ideas and would like someone to find the "illogic" in my logic.

We could draft it in the form of a petition - get it posted on that website that promotes new ideas and changes in law - and then get it moved to social networks for people to sign.

It goes like this:

1. We get Congress to change the words in all laws from "marriage" to "civil unions".
This would grant equality in civil rights areas including but not limited to: HIPPA/Adoption/Taxes/Discrimination etc.

2. We get Congress to pass a law stating any persons entering into a Civil Union must take Parenting Classes.
In my state the Department of State Health Services provides Evidenced Based Parenting Training classes taught by a social worker to people who are involved with the Women's Infant Children program and Child Protective Services.
This is probably a requirement for all states who accept federal funding. The only people who would be exempt from having to take the classes would be people who provided medical proof they were unable to have children. I absolutely LOVE this idea because it sets precedence for the concept of training people to be better parents. The classes don't teach or preach morals/values/ethics. They teach parents the developmental stages of children - the responsibilities of each parent towards their children during the stages - better communication techniques between the parents and the family in general - and all kinds of information they should have been taught before they became parents. imho - it should be taught to all seniors in high school. Anyway it would show to the citizens that children are a priority. Wouldn't it be awesome to get a chance to teach all people a bit of developmental psychology - whether they have children or not.

3. The word "Marriage" would be reserved for any religious doctrines who wanted to keep it viable among their traditions and rites as they deem appropriate for their religion. Anyone wishing to get "married" must obtain a Civil Union license and they too would have to take the Parenting Classes. This allows groups of people who hold to the same ideals maintain their cultural mores and family traditions. They wouldn't feel threatened by the government forcing them to accept a revision in the definition of the word.

Soooo....what do you think?

No. The government shouldn't even be involved in the marriage business or the civil union business.

 

[Rferraris]

Would you fight for the rights of a conservative? Nope, I guess not. Well that pretty much makes your entire point moot at this point.

What does being a conservative have to do with anything. I'd fight with out you asking. So how would I know. Hit a girl Saru and see what I do

And you quite literally ignore every single post I make. Which is fine, I mean, maybe you're still pissed because I said I don't want you on my blog anymore. But still. Don't berate Flavus for "ignoring" your crap and then go and ignore mine/his.

Don't be so sensitive. I wasn't ignoring you. I actually need to go back cause I didn't even know you posted. After my post yesterday, which I mostly thought would go unnoticed, the responses got a little hyper and I just grabbed my girl and said thank you. Went to sleep.

And I'm not upset Saru. I use my phone for this forum thing and there's a lot I can't tell, like if I'm on someone's blog.
I said I was sorry cause I put a long post in your blog and I guess that's not appropriate. So not mad, never was.

And I never pointed at Flavus directly. I think everyone has just assumed I was.
I made a small point that the thread didn't seem to turn into anything positive. And he can ignore me all he wants. So can you.

Arguments about the meaning of marriage for children is empty and vapid. It hold no water any more than my argument we shouldn't race boats because it makes too much noise and people on Pluto can't sleep at night.
You can try and make that an argument, but I doubt anyone would buy it.

Do you even understand the point of arguing? That's actually a genuine question. but then again perhaps you're so open minded that to even argue is bigoted, and I guess I should just ... go home?

And stop apologizing without meaning it. Why even apologize at that point.

Did I apologize and not mean it. Not broken hearted Saru but I will try to be respectful. And I didn't think this was about arguing. So don't let me get in the way.

And again I'm not ignoring anyone, just at work and doing other things. but hey I'm here now.

 

[hush]

No. The government shouldn't even be involved in the marriage business or the civil union business.

It is unfortunate that it already is, though I do not see this changing any time soon. If not the gov't, what do you propose?

 

[the]

It is unfortunate that it already is, though I do not see this changing any time soon. If not the gov't, what do you propose?

However it was done before the government got into it.

 

[Kgal]

No. The government shouldn't even be involved in the marriage business or the civil union business.

I totally agree with you.

But the problem is - it already IS involved.

Mental health teachings state that human beings only cope well with Change when it comes in small increments. Otherwise - our brains snap and we revert to fear mode.

This is a small change. We substitute the words "Civil Union" - which is already an excepted construct in main stream society - for the word "marriage" - in all the laws. Easy peasy as [MENTION=1834]sandra_b[/MENTION] would say.

Small change.

Implementing the law that one must take a Parenting Class before getting joined is easy as well. Parenting Classes are already being taught by government funded programs everywhere. They are "in place" meeting government standards and criteria for unbiased perspectives - and shown to be effective. Otherwise - they wouldn't allow them.

Small change.

We already have to get a license to get married - no matter what religious individual marries us. There's no real change with that regard.

No changes there.

The religions get to have complete say in who gets married in their church. They'll love it! They'll relax.

 

[the]

I totally agree with you.

But the problem is - it already IS involved.

Mental health teachings state that human beings only cope well with Change when it comes in small increments. Otherwise - our brains snap and we revert to fear mode.

This is a small change. We substitute the words "Civil Union" - which is already an excepted construct in main stream society - for the word "marriage" - in all the laws. Easy peasy as @sandra_b would say.

Small change.

Implementing the law that one must take a Parenting Class before getting joined is easy as well. Parenting Classes are already being taught by government funded programs everywhere. They are "in place" meeting government standards and criteria for unbiased perspectives - and shown to be effective. Otherwise - they wouldn't allow them.

Small change.

We already have to get a license to get married - no matter what religious individual marries us. There's no real change with that regard.

No changes there.

The religions get to have complete say in who gets married in their church. They'll love it! They'll relax.

You agree with me but instead of making it as it is supposed to be you make it even worse. The government is involved. Okay make it not involved. You are the change experts, make it happen.

 

[Kgal]

You agree with me but instead of making it as it is supposed to be you make it even worse. The government is involved. Okay make it not involved. You are the change experts, make it happen.

At least the proposal takes the word Marriage out of government involvement.

Or did you not see that?

 

[the]

At least the proposal takes the word Marriage out of government involvement.

Or did you not see that?

Dont try and manipulate me with your small change increments. That isnt good enough.

 

[Kgal]

Dont try and manipulate me with your small change increments. That isnt good enough.

It's a step in the right direction. You could form a temporary alliance with me and promote this idea. Then we could work on chipping away at the civil union laws.

 

[just me]

It would at the very least make me feel like "marriage" wasn't being humiliated. Then let those seeking it ask for something different. There are those that may not like being "married" if the definition is changed. They won't want to be grandfathered in, either.

Ask for something different. That will not make it alright with me, but it doesn't tarnish the "marriage".

 

[acd]

Homosexuality tarnishes marriage but having affairs or getting divorced or abusing your spouse doesn't?
There is no such thing as the sacred institution of marriage. It is such an unrealistic and impractical idea to expect society to not evolve because it makes you uncomfortable.
Gay marriage WILL be legal. If not in this generation then the next. Support for gay marriage has been rising since the mid 90s.

Keep your own marriage "holy" if that is the concern. And why should you care if other people don't want to be married?

 

[Kgal]

It would at the very least make me feel like "marriage" wasn't being humiliated. Then let those seeking it ask for something different. There are those that may not like being "married" if the definition is changed. They won't want to be grandfathered in, either.

Ask for something different. That will not make it alright with me, but it doesn't tarnish the "marriage".

I'm not quite understanding you.

Are you saying my proposal is a good compromise?

I'm thinking people who follow the traditions of their cultural definition of marriage will still want to do so. Right?

Oh...I think I see what you mean.

If government seeks some way to allow homosexual marriages to be federal law - THEN some may not like being married because the definition will have allegedly changed. Is that what you meant? If so... then my proposal would head that off at the pass. Right?

 

[Kgal]

Homosexuality tarnishes marriage but having affairs or getting divorced or abusing your spouse doesn't?
There is no such thing as the sacred institution of marriage. It is such an unrealistic and impractical idea to expect society to not evolve because it makes you uncomfortable.
Gay marriage WILL be legal. If not in this generation then the next. Support for gay marriage has been rising since the mid 90s.

Keep your own marriage "holy" if that is the concern. And why should you care if other people don't want to be married?

Actually most of the religions against homosexuals are fighting to hold on to their ...ummm....constituency?...their followers. And they think being rigid will accomplish this....when in actuality it is not. They are losing members...steadily....according to the latest research numbers.

Challenging just me and his beliefs doesn't really do much to prove a point - though. You can't use logic to dispute a belief. If his community believes and upholds the institution to be sacred - then it is. Period. How can you question what any one person thinks is Sacred to them?

The better strategy for gaining civil rights and equality is to push for exactly that. Ask him how he thinks it could be accomplished while leaving "marriage" untouched.

The best strategy is to ask why any LGBT cannot have equal rights. That way it is not perceived as an attack on the religions. Instead it is a direct confrontation with people against it and whether they think LGBT persons are people with the rights and liberties of a citizen. The media would not have a field day with that one and what politician would side with that? Yet they're all right with siding with religion. It gives people the illusion the politicians have ethics and morals.

 

[Apone]

The whole point of is that government is actively involved-- they're suppressing marriages, and controlling the definition of the term, and denying people the right to define the nature of their own relationships.

Even a lot of Christian denominations willfully acknowledge gay marriage as valid. These changes have already happened. Regardless of this, the church does NOT control the state and it's a matter of religious freedom that I be able to have my own personal sense of what a marriage is, or what my relationship constitutes...

If the government wasn't involved then they wouldn't have such strict and ridiculously backwards demands-- they would actively recognize that marriages are performed by all kinds of different religions, all kinds of people with all kinds of different beliefs, and they would acknowledge that these marriages are valid because the people who are in them believe that they are, because the churches who permitted them believe them to be, and because actively denying that they are is willfully oppressive and discriminatory against all of those churches, all of those denominations, all of those individual's beliefs... because governments are not supposed to police morals, they're supposed to be empowering their citizens...

Legalizing gay marriage has absolutely no effect on anyone's personal beliefs. No one is expecting anyone to change their minds. You can still believe whatever you want-- if gay people get married you remain free to believe that only men and women should get married, or that the Bible is 100% true, or that gays are going to hell, or whatever... but this isn't about your beliefs being threatened, this is about a certain segment of the population trying to actively prevent other people from being able to act according to their own beliefs.

 

[Rferraris]

Let me ask those of you who are upset: How well do you really understand [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]'s position? I've seen a lot of inferrential negativity rather than him expressing so explicitly.

By definition, are not all heterosexuals homophobic to a certain degree? I am straight and so, personally, I am opposed to any sort of homosexual behavior. You might say, "How can you be opposed to something you haven't tried?" This is because at a fundamental level I am homophobic. Does this mean I hate gays or that I am opposed to gay marriage or gay rights? No, it does not. There is a difference between my own and other's beliefs and behaviors.

So I ask you, how well do you really think you understand [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]'s position? Because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, does that mean he hates gays? I dunno, possibly. I think it'd be better if you'd question his position to realize where he's coming from rather than jump to conclusions that may or may not be true.

Well see here's what I'd say.
I'm not gay. I don't particularly like to think about two guys together. But I am humble enough in this world to on some level respect there are other things, that the world doesn't need my approval, and my liking or not liking something isn't really the question. To me.

The question is do we accept and on some level support other people, their lives, their choices. That's what the question means to me. Not am I gay, have I tried being gay, did I like being gay, but will I let another person live the life they choose and die by their own volition. And for me I don't see myself as so important in this world, that's it's even a question. Asking is like should I accept the sun will rise. Honestly I'm sure everyone would like to see me try and stop it. Doesn't it sound amazingly arrogant to think I should control, you should control other people's lives.

 

[acd]

Good points here:

My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage


By Mark Osler, Special to CNN
I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.
What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.
A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.
During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.
After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).
His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.
My Take: Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality
It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.
Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.
The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.

Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality
The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!
I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.
The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.

At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.
I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.
It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.
The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-take-the-christian-case-for-gay-marriage/

I really am not that concerned about people who can't reason for themselves about these things, because fortunately, they are becoming the minority on their opposition to this issue.
Like I said before, it is only a matter of time until it is legal. The times they are a changin'!

Support For Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls.

 

[just me]

I'm not quite understanding you.

Are you saying my proposal is a good compromise?

I'm thinking people who follow the traditions of their cultural definition of marriage will still want to do so. Right?

Oh...I think I see what you mean.

If government seeks some way to allow homosexual marriages to be federal law - THEN some may not like being married because the definition will have allegedly changed. Is that what you meant? If so... then my proposal would head that off at the pass. Right?

Right.

 

[just me]

...and the only thing I see changing are the morals of society.

Like I said: leave marriage out of the equation. It is for a man and a woman. Always has been; always will be. Why does anyone have such a problem with that?

I remember someone always wanted to be just like George Burns, but he never could be. Why not be yourself with your own virtues and leave us alone? Plant your own tree!

[MENTION=2578]Kgal[/MENTION], I am not accustomed to having someone understand me so readily and so easily....to be so outspoken about it. Why do people take my/our ideas so negatively? Can't they see it would make things easier for everyone?

 

[the]

Homosexuality tarnishes marriage but having affairs or getting divorced or abusing your spouse doesn't?
There is no such thing as the sacred institution of marriage. It is such an unrealistic and impractical idea to expect society to not evolve because it makes you uncomfortable.
Gay marriage WILL be legal. If not in this generation then the next. Support for gay marriage has been rising since the mid 90s.

Keep your own marriage "holy" if that is the concern. And why should you care if other people don't want to be married?

Who said that having affairs doesnt tarnish the institution of marriage? Yes, gay marriage probably will be legal in the very near future, why so militant on the issue? Why can't the reverse be applied to homosexual couples: i.e. act committed to your partner and leave marriage to straight people. In the end we will just be giving homosexuals the opportunity to tarnish marriage as well. Lets just skip it to the next level of "progress" and have no one ever get married.

 

[5r6jhd]

Who said that having affairs doesnt tarnish the institution of marriage? Yes, gay marriage probably will be legal in the very near future, why so militant on the issue? Why can't the reverse be applied to homosexual couples: i.e. act committed to your partner and leave marriage to straight people. In the end we will just be giving homosexuals the opportunity to tarnish marriage as well. Lets just skip it to the next level of "progress" and have no one ever get married.

I think it's more [MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION] s seemingly over romanticised notion of marriage. The institution of marriage is a joke. I'd like to find a life partner, but I don't think i'll ever get married....if I do it will be for financial reasons for both myself and said imaginary partner.

Christian marriage is one of the biggest jokes. I think it's why I find everyone getting so worked up about gay marriage amusing.