the challange
I want someone to tell me 1 good reason why they are against gay marriage that does not have anything to do with religious beliefs.
I am sick and tired of the religious right going on a tirade about protecting the sanctity of marriage, and how gay people undermine and are a threat to traditional marriage. I’m sick to death of it.
1) Do you even know what you mean by traditional marriage? Biblically speaking it is NOT a union of 1 man and 1 woman. It is a union of 1 man and dozens of women. Or one man and one woman and concubines. Or one man and his slaves or prisoners of war. Etc. The concept of one man and one woman, you do realize, is a relatively MODERN concept.
2) The church has not been the end-all be all of marriage throughout history. Do you realize that the church did not have anything to do with marriage in the sacrament sense until the 1600s, when the Catholic church made it illegal to recognize any marriage that was not performed in a church? The fact remains that marriage is NOT a religious institution, it’s a legal contract between people that didn’t always mean consenting adults either.
3) Gay marriage is NOT a moral issue – it’s a human RIGHTS issue. I maintain that everyone has the freedom to believe whatever religious beliefs they want. I will fight for your right to have freedom of religion all day long, even if I disagree with you on your religion. However, that does not mean that you have the right to impose or force your religious views on everybody else, and force your dogma and your beliefs down other people’s throats. If you don’t agree with homosexuality and you don’t like gay marriage, it’s simple. Don’t have one. Marry someone of the opposite sex. Do whatever you want. But don’t tell me I’m not allowed to get married simply because you disagree with it.
4) This country is NOT a religious nation. It was founded as a secular nation. According to the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,âas it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,âand as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” and the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What a lot of people fail to understand is that this country was established not only for freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion. They did not want the religious beliefs and doctrines of England to be forced upon others with differing doctrines or beliefs, so they left. Yet this is EXACTLY what a lot of christians today are doing on other groups. Many of the founding fathers (who were deists or outright atheists, incidentally – and the few that did say they were “christian” kept their beliefs private, they had NOTHING to do with their political responsibilities) would turn over in their graves to see political candidates pandering to the sympathies of religious groups and proclaiming their personal faith like a badge of honor. It’s repugnant.
5) Gay rights are NOT impeding on anyone else’s rights or marriages. If you want to get married in a church, go do it! I am not saying that the government should force churches to perform gay marriages. No one is arguing for that. I’m willing to keep my rights out of your church – but keep your church out of my rights in return.
5) There is no threat to “traditional” (please see above) marriage. How does my marriage or what I do in my bedroom affect you? It doesn’t. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home. I don’t care what you do in your church. I don’t care what you teach your children. I don’t care about what you believe in at all. Why is the religious right in this country so sex-obsessed and homophobic that they think what I choose to do with my own life will affect them? Get over yourselves. Seriously. And stop obsessing about what gay people do in their bedrooms. It’s none of your business. If you really want to “protect” the sanctity of marriage – why don’t you outlaw divorce? Or start killing adulterers again, as your bible commands. that way we can protect marriage AND do some population control in one foul swoop. sounds like a plan, doesn’t’ it?
6) Don’t give me the whole “well if we give gay people the right to marry, then people will want to start marrying farm animals, and marrying their sisters and brothers and cousins and children etc” argument. Its overdone. You do realize that the same exact arguments were brought up once the question of interracial marriage was raised, right? And guess what? None of that happened, did it? Just because you recognize the rights of a group under the law as human beings who deserve the same civil rights and liberties you enjoy does not mean, suddenly, that anything goes. Oh, and if you are so against the concept of adults marrying children, perhaps you should reign in your priests who just molest them instead.
I have not seen one single argument against homosexuality and equal rights that does not, in some way, go back to the bible. And since christians today don’t even follow the bible (unless there are some groups out there that are still stoning adulterers – goodbye newt gingrich – or forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, or abstaining from shrimp or cotton-poly blends) it’s an argument from stupidity and prejudice, and not legal standing. Get over it. You’re going to have to eventually, anyway.
Human rights, civil rights are NOT defined by what your invisible superpower in the sky says. They are laws based on the good of society and the freedom of all people to enjoy the same abilities that others share. I don’t CARE what your invisible friend says, or how big the stick you want to whack me on the head with is. it has nothing to do with RIGHTS. Rights, as they exist, are not not found in the bible. Laws are. They are not the same thing. Get it through your head already.
some people are too stupid. I am with you. Where’s the love? since when has religion been about whipping up the masses in hatered and intolerance? Something has been lost along the way and religion (in my experience) is often used as a weapon to enforce intolerance, aggresion and prejudice and allow people to conduct narrowminded, biggoted behaviours under the pretence of a moral high ground!
Warning Comment
some people are too stupid. I am with you. Where’s the love? since when has religion been about whipping up the masses in hatered and intolerance? Something has been lost along the way and religion (in my experience) is often used as a weapon to enforce intolerance, aggresion and prejudice and allow people to conduct narrowminded, biggoted behaviours under the pretence of a moral high ground!
Warning Comment
There is a problem with ‘tell me 1 good reason why they are against gay marriage that does not have anything to do with religious beliefs.’ Marriage is a religious ceremony, or at the very least it is widely recognized as being one. I am not against gay ‘marriage.’ I am against the ‘state’ giving extra priorities to a religious ceremony. Whatever happened to separation of religion and state? I think that it should be referred to as a ‘Civil Union’ and if your religion *happens* to call that a marriage, then so be it, but the ‘State’ should acknowledge all such ‘Civil Unions’ equally.
Warning Comment
There is a problem with ‘tell me 1 good reason why they are against gay marriage that does not have anything to do with religious beliefs.’ Marriage is a religious ceremony, or at the very least it is widely recognized as being one. I am not against gay ‘marriage.’ I am against the ‘state’ giving extra priorities to a religious ceremony. Whatever happened to separation of religion and state? I think that it should be referred to as a ‘Civil Union’ and if your religion *happens* to call that a marriage, then so be it, but the ‘State’ should acknowledge all such ‘Civil Unions’ equally.
Warning Comment
I’m a Christian, I support gay marriage, and I love your points. There is only one misconception, the first amendment was actually written, proposed, and supported by those of a Baptist persuasion, thus Christian, and taken initially from the founding of Rhode Island (by a Baptist). Certain religious people still believe in the freedom of conscience. Others have gotten lost, and that’s what sucks.
Warning Comment
I’m a Christian, I support gay marriage, and I love your points. There is only one misconception, the first amendment was actually written, proposed, and supported by those of a Baptist persuasion, thus Christian, and taken initially from the founding of Rhode Island (by a Baptist). Certain religious people still believe in the freedom of conscience. Others have gotten lost, and that’s what sucks.
Warning Comment
The argument against is simple; by the majority of faiths’ pov, as per their holy book, it is prohibited. As a Jew, I can definitively say that it is wrong for a jewish man to marry another jewish man or jewish woman to jewish woman. Keep in mind I’m talking about this in a strictly religious view. Knowing this, and knowing the torah CLEARLY says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not man and man, not woman and woman, not man and animal, not man and job, not man and universe, not man and god, etc, we can easily see a reason to not marry any combination that is not man and woman. I cannot fault any rabbi who refuses to do this. I simply cannot. In fact, this is the only anti-gay argument that holds one iota of water to me. But the thing is, the world is not viewed with strictly your religion goggles. There’s more to it than just strict interpretations of scripture. In a more relaxed religious point of view, you can look at various passages about sanctity of love etc as a reason to relax that particular rule. Or in another way, you can think of the Torah as a living document that changes with the times and needs of it’s people
Warning Comment
The argument against is simple; by the majority of faiths’ pov, as per their holy book, it is prohibited. As a Jew, I can definitively say that it is wrong for a jewish man to marry another jewish man or jewish woman to jewish woman. Keep in mind I’m talking about this in a strictly religious view. Knowing this, and knowing the torah CLEARLY says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not man and man, not woman and woman, not man and animal, not man and job, not man and universe, not man and god, etc, we can easily see a reason to not marry any combination that is not man and woman. I cannot fault any rabbi who refuses to do this. I simply cannot. In fact, this is the only anti-gay argument that holds one iota of water to me. But the thing is, the world is not viewed with strictly your religion goggles. There’s more to it than just strict interpretations of scripture. In a more relaxed religious point of view, you can look at various passages about sanctity of love etc as a reason to relax that particular rule. Or in another way, you can think of the Torah as a living document that changes with the times and needs of it’s people
Warning Comment
If you think of the Torah in this way, it is easy to see that a man and a man can live a holy life and do the works of God EXACTLY as a normal couple can (outside of sex obviously). You can fulfill obligations of children by adoption and in many ways this is a more world-conscious (tikkun olam!) way of doing things. In this way, I can 100% accept a rabbi who, by his own feelings of faith, does choose to marry man and man or woman and woman. In a similar vein though, I totally agree that faith has nothing to do with the government. Except I think I’m probably more strict about interpretation. I think it has absolutely 0 say in it. If the government says no, well fuck them and what they say. Only the church of whatever particular faith can perform a marriage for one of their number, only the priests themselves or rabbi themselves can perform the ceremony and make marriage a reality. If the rabbi performs it where it’s illegal it’s still 100% valid to me. I wish they’d get this out of politics; they have no say about God and never will.
Warning Comment
If you think of the Torah in this way, it is easy to see that a man and a man can live a holy life and do the works of God EXACTLY as a normal couple can (outside of sex obviously). You can fulfill obligations of children by adoption and in many ways this is a more world-conscious (tikkun olam!) way of doing things. In this way, I can 100% accept a rabbi who, by his own feelings of faith, does choose to marry man and man or woman and woman. In a similar vein though, I totally agree that faith has nothing to do with the government. Except I think I’m probably more strict about interpretation. I think it has absolutely 0 say in it. If the government says no, well fuck them and what they say. Only the church of whatever particular faith can perform a marriage for one of their number, only the priests themselves or rabbi themselves can perform the ceremony and make marriage a reality. If the rabbi performs it where it’s illegal it’s still 100% valid to me. I wish they’d get this out of politics; they have no say about God and never will.
Warning Comment
So I suppose I’m kind of in both camps. Ultimately I suppose I fall on the side of acceptance though. Not because their argument is better or more valid, but because it’s very good, just like the anti-gay argument is very good. Because there’s reference and guidance towards both in Torah, I cannot just decide or I’d be taking the place of God. So I accept them and just think of it as a minor minorsin, something akin to not wearing something to cover your head if you move more than a few steps (another incredibly nitpicky minor sin). Most Jews screw that one up every day, nearly every moment of every day. Can hardly let it get in the way of doing good though. You know?
Warning Comment
So I suppose I’m kind of in both camps. Ultimately I suppose I fall on the side of acceptance though. Not because their argument is better or more valid, but because it’s very good, just like the anti-gay argument is very good. Because there’s reference and guidance towards both in Torah, I cannot just decide or I’d be taking the place of God. So I accept them and just think of it as a minor minorsin, something akin to not wearing something to cover your head if you move more than a few steps (another incredibly nitpicky minor sin). Most Jews screw that one up every day, nearly every moment of every day. Can hardly let it get in the way of doing good though. You know?
Warning Comment
I know, that’s why I put the part about how I felt that this was the ONLY argument that holds any water. ;p Ended up going more off on the subject than I intended.
Warning Comment
I know, that’s why I put the part about how I felt that this was the ONLY argument that holds any water. ;p Ended up going more off on the subject than I intended.
Warning Comment
^to the noter above: Using the Torah is great, and specifying between a JEWISH man and JEWISH woman is good, too, but this is one verse that is surrounded by hundreds of other verses of Law that are supposed to be followed. Anything out of context is a mess. The Torah was written for a particular people, in a particular time, in a particular place and Judaism stopped being tribal during the exile
Warning Comment
^to the noter above: Using the Torah is great, and specifying between a JEWISH man and JEWISH woman is good, too, but this is one verse that is surrounded by hundreds of other verses of Law that are supposed to be followed. Anything out of context is a mess. The Torah was written for a particular people, in a particular time, in a particular place and Judaism stopped being tribal during the exile
Warning Comment
Edana: Marriage is a legal act, a wedding is a ceremony (usually religious). Technicalities but important ones to define. Much like Sex and Gender are two different things.
Warning Comment
Edana: Marriage is a legal act, a wedding is a ceremony (usually religious). Technicalities but important ones to define. Much like Sex and Gender are two different things.
Warning Comment
@ kittenCorn: on legal forms they often ask “SEX M or F” not just GENDER; so apparently the government is as confused about that as anyone. I’m saying that ‘Marriage’ is often RECOGNIZED or CONSIDERED as part of being a religion or religious ceremony and therefore if the government is truly ever going to separate religion from ‘state’ then it needs to come up with a different name than ‘Marriage’and I called it a ‘Civil Union’ (well, I’m not the first one who has thought of this term!) Dreamer.Rising RYN: I agree.
Warning Comment
@ kittenCorn: on legal forms they often ask “SEX M or F” not just GENDER; so apparently the government is as confused about that as anyone. I’m saying that ‘Marriage’ is often RECOGNIZED or CONSIDERED as part of being a religion or religious ceremony and therefore if the government is truly ever going to separate religion from ‘state’ then it needs to come up with a different name than ‘Marriage’and I called it a ‘Civil Union’ (well, I’m not the first one who has thought of this term!) Dreamer.Rising RYN: I agree.
Warning Comment
Edana – while today “marriage” may be considered a religious institution, since they feel the need to “protect” it so vehemently, it was not always. Marriage as a religious commitment is a relatively modern understanding. And if it were solely religious, people could not walk down to the courthouse and get hitched by a justice of the peace and have it be valid or recognized. As it stood in the1600s, marriage was not considered valid unless performed by the church – and that’s LATE – 1600 years after christianity started, when the church stuck its nose into it legally. Personally, I don’t care if you call it “smarriage”. I’ll go get “smarried” somewhere. I have a problem with the idea of “civil unions” since they are “seperate but equal” in theory, but are not equal in principle or practice. If marriage should be a solely religious institution, then married couples should not get tax breaks. If it is a solely legal institution, then maybe it shouldn’t be done in churches, and all should be at a courthouse. There has to be a moderate blend in between, with equality for all people who want it.
Warning Comment
Edana – while today “marriage” may be considered a religious institution, since they feel the need to “protect” it so vehemently, it was not always. Marriage as a religious commitment is a relatively modern understanding. And if it were solely religious, people could not walk down to the courthouse and get hitched by a justice of the peace and have it be valid or recognized. As it stood in the1600s, marriage was not considered valid unless performed by the church – and that’s LATE – 1600 years after christianity started, when the church stuck its nose into it legally. Personally, I don’t care if you call it “smarriage”. I’ll go get “smarried” somewhere. I have a problem with the idea of “civil unions” since they are “seperate but equal” in theory, but are not equal in principle or practice. If marriage should be a solely religious institution, then married couples should not get tax breaks. If it is a solely legal institution, then maybe it shouldn’t be done in churches, and all should be at a courthouse. There has to be a moderate blend in between, with equality for all people who want it.
Warning Comment
RYN: Well put. I think the problem lies with the word ‘Marriage.’ You’re right in that ‘married’ couples shouldn’t get tax breaks if it is a solely religious institution, and if it’s *not* a religious institution then don’t ask the churches to perform them! What I meant by ‘Civil Union’ was not as a disrespect, but more like all marriages should be considered ‘Civil Unions’ in the eyes of the ‘state’ and therefore all Civil Unions would need to have the same rights etc. Sorry if I’m being confusing – not trying to be! In other words if the state wants to give tax breaks then it needs to separate the religious aspect from ‘marriage’ somehow.
Warning Comment
RYN: Well put. I think the problem lies with the word ‘Marriage.’ You’re right in that ‘married’ couples shouldn’t get tax breaks if it is a solely religious institution, and if it’s *not* a religious institution then don’t ask the churches to perform them! What I meant by ‘Civil Union’ was not as a disrespect, but more like all marriages should be considered ‘Civil Unions’ in the eyes of the ‘state’ and therefore all Civil Unions would need to have the same rights etc. Sorry if I’m being confusing – not trying to be! In other words if the state wants to give tax breaks then it needs to separate the religious aspect from ‘marriage’ somehow.
Warning Comment
Oh Hon. I just think Gays and Lesbians are too cool to get married, and fall for the whole “til death do us part” thing knowing it probably isn’t going to happen. As one of the happily unmarried, I wonder why anybody would want to!!
Warning Comment
Oh Hon. I just think Gays and Lesbians are too cool to get married, and fall for the whole “til death do us part” thing knowing it probably isn’t going to happen. As one of the happily unmarried, I wonder why anybody would want to!!
Warning Comment
^^^ I want to show you something. It’s my surprised face.
Warning Comment
^^^ I want to show you something. It’s my surprised face.
Warning Comment
RYN: I only mentioned that it was by a Baptist because I, too, find it fascinating how twisted things have gotten. Baptists in particular care about the freedom of conscience and yet you see people like Westboro Baptist Church out there, and they just don’t get it! It’s sad, really.
Warning Comment
RYN: I only mentioned that it was by a Baptist because I, too, find it fascinating how twisted things have gotten. Baptists in particular care about the freedom of conscience and yet you see people like Westboro Baptist Church out there, and they just don’t get it! It’s sad, really.
Warning Comment
I am all for gay marriage, that way my oldest daughter could marry her partner of 13 years.
Warning Comment
I am all for gay marriage, that way my oldest daughter could marry her partner of 13 years.
Warning Comment