177 replies to this topic

[Rich_T]

...or any other faith that is not Christian ? Or no faith at all or agnostic ? And why is it allowed that a transgendered person is allow to marry what would then be an opposite sex ?


And for Rich T- considering that a major population in this country of this country is divorced or out of wedlock kids-by choice or circumstance ... many kids have only one parent -
Also there is a large and growing population of married heterosexual couples that use a 3rd party for sperm or eggs and also surrogates to produce children that have genes of at least one parent... How is this different from the two lesbians that use a male sperm donor to facilitate a live genetic birth.

While Rich T would like only Ideal two sex marriages due to his Mormon upbringing it is also a fact the Mormans also divorce and have affairs - heterosexual, bisexual and gay...

If you look at the stats- there is a large population of previously divorced or widowed men and women that get married without any inclination for procreation... sex yes , but not for kids...

And while a single parent or an unmarried Hetro couple can easily adopt and have benefits - a single or partnered gay parent does does not have the same rights.

Marriage is not Gods Patent- at least I have not seen it at the patent office- it is a union of two loving individuals that wish to commit themselves to each other for the rest of the term -initially meaning life - unless something happens to create a chasm that causes a divorce, a separation, or an agreed allowance to check out the green on the other side of the fence.

Those that cannot get married and have it accepted in this nation are currently subject to a discrimination of what avails all married couples within the US and that is equal benefits under the laws...
AS federal laws and many state laws do not avail the same tax, insurance and survivor benefits( among others ) to those that cannot marry. This is a major issue within the GBLT community.

There are many GBLT partnerships that have lasted 25 years and going and some 50years plus, but they are out of luck when it comes to the benefits that man/women are allowed- even when said man/woman are divorced. This is partly what the marriage effort by the GBLT groups is partially about...

Hitler was all for the IDEAL group of citizens- but Rich T - would you want that ?

I have already represented my non-threatening position as best as I can, and I don't intend to get sucked down a rabbit hole by someone who is either unwilling or incapable of understanding what I already wrote. Indeed, I have already addressed each point you make, but I'll state it again: If one considers marriage to be the institution designed for creating and producing the next generation, then gay marriage, as a category, does not serve that purpose. On the other hand, individual man/woman marriages that do not involve chidren do not invalidate the man/woman marriage category for serving the aforementioned purpose. You just can't use the argument that "some people don't have kids" to invalidate the raison d'etre of marriage as an institution.

This isn't about Mormons, but I think you'll find that the things you mention happen far less frequently in that commnunity than in the general population. As for "Rich T would like only Ideal two sex marriages due to his Mormon upbringing", that is quite false. I had no Mormon upbringing, for one thing. And I consider a mother and father, married, to be the best situation for having children and raising them, even without bringing religion into it.

Adoption is not a right. Benefits can be handled by domestic partnerships without redefining marriage. Legal benefits are not the gist of what marriage is about. People can will anything they want to anybody.

Using the "A vs B" explanation in my post to BorderCollieFan, you choose A, and I choose B. As I tried to explain to her, you can't use your endorsement of A to attack B. They are simply differing views of marriage, period. "A" is what you wrote: "a union of two loving individuals that wish to commit themselves to each other for the rest of [their lives]", and "B" is "marriage is the place for a man and woman to raise their children", even if not every married man and woman end up having children.

I have this feeling that you're going to persist in not agreeing to disagree. Prove me wrong.

"Hitler was all for the IDEAL group of citizens- but Rich T - would you want that?"

Come on, you know that's a total non-sequitur. Upholding the purpose of marriage (as I see it) has nothing to do with who people are, and has nothing to do with causing harm to anyone. No one is saying gays should be stop being gay, just because one thinks that marriage would serve a different purpose for gays, and is therefore not the same thing as heterosexual marriage. By the way, on the internet, invoking Hitler's name is usually considered grounds for ending a topic, because it shows that the discussion is going off the rails.

Your god means $hit to me.

Who knows, perhaps one day you will thank God that the reverse is not also true. :-)

[Rich_T]

Marriage is a church function that enables two people to make a pact with God in their committment to him. Civil Unions are a pact with the government that you are legal representing your finances, household and income.

I don't even bother with a religious-based argument against gay marriage. While I personally do subscribe to the idea of marriage being sanctioned by God, I would not want to impose that view on society. People who wish to have religious marriages can do so, no matter what other choices people make.

Instead, I am perfectly fine considering marriage only from the secular cultural standpoint. And when I do, I still see marriage being sanctioned by past generations for the purpose of raising subsequent generations. I see no valid reason to change that into the purely legal arrangement which you rightly mention as being something different.

[folsom500]

You pulled out the Hitler card? Really?

Marriage is God's patent.

Civil union is a legal document.

The LGBT is seeking legal rights commensurate to any other types of "households" ( again- a legal term) in America.

The LGBT and the American government do not have the right to tell Christians that they must accept changes from the government in what marriage is.
That would be violating a separation of church and state.

However, The Government can ( and in my opinion should) change the definition of civil union to be required by every household who is claiming taxes, insurance, shared income, legal responsibilities; etc.

Marriage is a church function that enables two people to make a pact with God in their committment to him. Civil Unions are a pact with the government that you are legal representing your finances, household and income.

The marriage certificate should never have been allowed to be the deciding factor on taxes and legal or fiscal responsibilities. The civil union needs to be re defined. Not Christianity.

Within the federal context "marriage is a union of a man and women" until DOMA is overturned so "marriage" is a legal entity not associated with any religion... Right ? While various religions have marriage ceremonies, I would imagine that many have them at a church as it holds more people than the county recorder - you can shop around for a church and pay the fee- that is all they ask, unless you are catholic or mormon... for those you have to go to 6 weeks of classes to be deemed fit to marry---

Civil Unions do not exist in the US that give any federal rights. Only Marriage does...

Yes , I pulled the Hitler card, but you have no idea why ... Hitler was considered effeminate by many in the 20s based on his body as well as his close connections to the gay community. Many thought this was one reason he came out so violently against the gays when he got in power- rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps with their pink Triangles on their prison garb. Rich T is looking and commenting on his Mormon faith and is virtually insisting on the IDEAL situation... well that hardly exists anymore as I noted in my previous post..

I have no personal issue with those that chose a church wedding for the reasons you mention - but I do know that over 50% of them fail as well... But at least Heteros can gain the tax and other benefits that gays cannot ... at this time...

[Rich_T]

Rich T is looking and commenting on his Mormon faith and is virtually insisting on the IDEAL situation... well that hardly exists anymore as I noted in my previous post.

No, I'm not. I'm leaving religion out of this. And, while a married father and mother IS the ideal situation for raising kids, and yes it certainly still does exist, I am not insisting that everyone must conform, or suggesting that everyone does. I am only saying that same-sex partnerships can never fulfill that condition, and as such should not use the same word, "marriage", to define the relationship.

How many different ways do I have to say this?

And, would you truly be satisfied if all the tax benefits etc. were equalized? That wouldn't be enough, would it, because you choose "A".

[folsom500]

No, I'm not. I'm leaving religion out of this. And, while a married father and mother IS the ideal situation for raising kids, and yes it certainly still does exist, I am not insisting that everyone must conform, or suggesting that everyone does. I am only saying that same-sex partnerships can never fulfill that condition, and as such should not use the same word, "marriage", to define the relationship.

How many different ways do I have to say this?

And, would you truly be satisfied if all the tax benefits etc. were equalized? That wouldn't be enough, would it, because you choose "A".

I have no issue what they call it as long as we are treated as equals for all state and federal benefits. I am sure other might have issue with this but until a federal Civil Union is defined to be equal to a marriage in the eyes of the law- we have to keep pushing for something ...

[Steve Heard]

I see marriage as having nothing to do with religion, sex or children.

Many cultures have had commitment ceremonies which had nothing to do with religion.

People get married at the court house every day without a religious ceremony or meaning, and many with no intention of having children, many without the ability to have children, many for convenience sake.

I think we waste far too much time and energy on trying to prevent something that will not hurt, or even affect any of us in any way.

[Rich_T]

I have no issue what they call it as long as we are treated as equals for all state and federal benefits. I am sure other might have issue with this but until a federal Civil Union is defined to be equal to a marriage in the eyes of the law- we have to keep pushing for something ...

Fine with me. I would use the word "equivalent".

[Rich_T]

I see marriage as having nothing to do with religion, sex or children.

Many cultures have had commitment ceremonies which had nothing to do with religion.

People get married at the court house every day without a religious ceremony or meaning, and many with no intention of having children, many without the ability to have children, many for convenience sake.

I think we waste far too much time and energy on trying to prevent something that will not hurt, or even affect any of us in any way.

I understand your point of view about marriage.

That's right - not all marriages involve children. But ultimately, if NO marriages produced their own children, as is the case with same-sex partners, then our society would have no real use for marriage at all. To the extent that there is still a fundamental reason for the existence of marriage, I will continue to support that reason, and reject the things that don't fit the purpose. From my perspective, there's just as much time and energy being wasted in trying to force-fit relationships into marriage when they don't fit the bill.

I don't think we should decide all societal questions based on the concept of "fine, do what you want, since it's not hurting anyone". There also should be a decent reason FOR enacting something.

[cw68]

You pulled out the Hitler card? Really?

Marriage is God's patent.

Civil union is a legal document.

The LGBT is seeking legal rights commensurate to any other types of "households" ( again- a legal term) in America.

The LGBT and the American government do not have the right to tell Christians that they must accept changes from the government in what marriage is.
That would be violating a separation of church and state.

However, The Government can ( and in my opinion should) change the definition of civil union to be required by every household who is claiming taxes, insurance, shared income, legal responsibilities; etc.

Marriage is a church function that enables two people to make a pact with God in their committment to him. Civil Unions are a pact with the government that you are legal representing your finances, household and income.

The marriage certificate should never have been allowed to be the deciding factor on taxes and legal or fiscal responsibilities. The civil union needs to be re defined. Not Christianity.

Marriage is not just God's patent. My wedding had nothing to do with God, yet I was married.

I do, however, agree that the US government should only be involved in the union business and leave marriage up to the churches to fight out. Then only those who are about religion are affected.

[Steve Heard]

I do, however, agree that the US government should only be involved in the union business and leave marriage up to the churches to fight out. Then only those who are about religion are affected.

I don't get the difference between a marriage and a union. Why are we associating marriages with church if one can get married outside of a church?

[supermom]

Within the federal context "marriage is a union of a man and women" until DOMA is overturned so "marriage" is a legal entity not associated with any religion... Right ? While various religions have marriage ceremonies, I would imagine that many have them at a church as it holds more people than the county recorder - you can shop around for a church and pay the fee- that is all they ask, unless you are catholic or mormon... for those you have to go to 6 weeks of classes to be deemed fit to marry---

Civil Unions do not exist in the US that give any federal rights. Only Marriage does...

Yes , I pulled the Hitler card, but you have no idea why ... Hitler was considered effeminate by many in the 20s based on his body as well as his close connections to the gay community. Many thought this was one reason he came out so violently against the gays when he got in power- rounding them up and putting them in concentration camps with their pink Triangles on their prison garb. Rich T is looking and commenting on his Mormon faith and is virtually insisting on the IDEAL situation... well that hardly exists anymore as I noted in my previous post..

I have no personal issue with those that chose a church wedding for the reasons you mention - but I do know that over 50% of them fail as well... But at least Heteros can gain the tax and other benefits that gays cannot ... at this time...

You are not following the gist of what I am saying, or perhaps you just don't like the message.
I did not say that any household should not have equal rights as far as government sanctioned benefits. Marriage is not a government sanctioned benefit. Marriage is a holy pact. People who have a "marriage license" and not Christians are still living the same sinful life as the LGBT community. I agree that marriage certificates or licenses should not be given out to non Christians. I also agree that a marriage license should not be a definition of a household. So, what does that mean? It means I think that all households regardless of who is the main bread winner or the secondary bread winner, should be required to have a government sanctioned benefit package for all members in the household. I think the LGBT community is severely short-sighted in the manner they are approaching benefit entitlements with the government and the public. I think that the first sign of this is that they can't let go of the marriage license and work around the legal end of the law. Historically, fighting legally against religion has been the longest route to advancement rather than using the law to their advantage.

Attacking families that divorce for multiples of reasons is not exactly the route I would go, in arguing why you should have the same rights as the people you so jealously want to mimic. ( See how I did that? Doesn't feel so good, does it? Imagine you telling a woman that she is less of a person than you because she divorced after being abused, and is now a single parent. Why would you lump together "all divorces" and connect them to Christianity? "Marriage" and "Christianity" are not synonymous in the legal system in the United States. I continue to be amazed that Americans accept on a daily basis, the inconsistencies in law; in regards to Christian rights/morals vs. legal "rights".

I am positive that if someone challenged a Marriage certificate as Constitutional for purposes of identification of entitlements, rights, and government subsidies- the LGBT community would win.

Finally, please do not presume to tell me what I don't know about Dachau, the pink triangle statue, or think for one moment that I have not kept abreast of the LGBT movement.
Believe it or not, I do support equality of rights. I also believe that the government needs to get out of the business of concerning itself with the ideals of marriage (because ideals do not equate to legal rights), and move on towards completing separation of church and state by creating one license for legal proof of household status.

[supermom]

I respectfully disagree, marriage is not all about God, it's about a commitment between two people. We don't all live life entirely by the bible and each and every single passage.

Try to think about marriage outside of the bible and all it holds you to.

and really God didn't make the requirements of marriage and divorce, some guys in robes drinking wine did, then some organizations formed and decided to make their own interpretations in the name of their organizations and here we are today....

Maybe this is why you guys are having a hard time with gay marriage, it's outside of your religious rules (?)

Just curious, were you married in a church prior to having your children?

Marriage is about God. Everything else can be performed by the justice of the peace. And the only thing that should be recognized by the gov. should be performed only by the justice of the peace as merely a contractual paper.
No, I'm not a perfect Christian. I recognize everyone does things they later regret. I also recognize that every has their own set of values in what is important to you. Im not here to criticize a persons lifestyle. I am only here to speak on behalf of myself on the OP original question.

Yes, God did make requirements on marriage and divorce, it is in the bible. For both.

And that is why I feel marriage should be a church function and not a State recognized form of identity, for State functions. There is a passage in the Bible about that, too. Separating God's laws and human laws.

Yes, I was married in a church prior to having children. Along with a 1 year plus engagement before beginning pre-marital counseling.

[SunshineServices]

Marriage is about God. Everything else can be performed by the justice of the peace. And the only thing that should be recognized by the gov. should be performed only by the justice of the peace as merely a contractual paper.
No, I'm not a perfect Christian. I recognize everyone does things they later regret. I also recognize that every has their own set of values in what is important to you. Im not here to criticize a persons lifestyle. I am only here to speak on behalf of myself on the OP original question.

Yes, God did make requirements on marriage and divorce, it is in the bible. For both.

And that is why I feel marriage should be a church function and not a State recognized form of identity, for State functions. There is a passage in the Bible about that, too. Separating God's laws and human laws.

Yes, I was married in a church prior to having children. Along with a 1 year plus engagement before beginning pre-marital counseling.

See, the whole GOD CREATED THE WORLD IN SEVEN DAYS is about God also, and for most of us, that's also been shown to be slightly off. So, your argument doesn't hold much water.

[supermom]

See, the whole GOD CREATED THE WORLD IN SEVEN DAYS is about God also, and for most of us, that's also been shown to be slightly off. So, your argument doesn't hold much water.

Why are you shouting?

And which part? Me saying that equality should be a government endorsement, not a marriage license?

What is your objection to everyone having the same license, government created- since it is government rights everyone is seeking in order to find equality?