Requiring Children...

[mommax3]

I agree with Peter.

Sally

[Bluejay]

I agree with Peter.

Sally

I agree with Peter also.

[Bluejay]

The gist of my feelings are: I feel discriminated against as a religious person.

Because the left thinks it is okay to mock religion me thinks.
It is always interesting to me that it is okay to say a view is wrong when it is religious, but not when it is based on what? social humanism?

What if I said that I would only accept non-scientific arguments?

BTW, no, that is not how I feel about science. I just asked that question to make the point that it is discriminatory to rule out a whole category of opinions.... whatever their source.

I think it's important to recognize different points of view. The downside though, is that you can end up where I am, with a big, multi-faceted, thorny situation, without easy answers. Maybe the need to avoid this problem is why we tend to summarize into categories. :huh:

[Gwendolyn]

I feel like if the response to same-sex couples wanting into the marriage game is to then take away stuff [rights, benefits, traditions] from heterosexuals so we can be equal, then that's just . . . like saying "our choices were to let gays in or burn down the house, so we burned down the house." It's just not the nation I want.

What I was suggesting was not to take away benefits, but rather make them available to everyone, from a legal perspective. Then allow the religious perspective do what it will.

As long as the complete number (and important ones at that) of privileges are tied to marriage, then yes, it is a civil right. To deny anyone access is unconstitutional.

I think that religion plays a huge part in this discussion and that is why it is here. Honestly it offends my sense of religion to deny someone the right to marriage and to ordain a man and a woman as the best way to raise a child. It neglects the many ways family can be constructed so that all members grow and are nurtured in wonderful and delightful ways. The God I know doesn't walk that road.

This isn't anti-religion. This is about a particular religious movement in this country championing anti-gay rhetoric so vehemently that it is impossible to participate in this debate without engaging that particular perspective.

[Auspicious]

I feel like if the response to same-sex couples wanting into the marriage game is to then take away stuff [rights, benefits, traditions] from heterosexuals so we can be equal, then that's just . . . like saying "our choices were to let gays in or burn down the house, so we burned down the house." It's just not the nation I want.

What I was suggesting was not to take away benefits, but rather make them available to everyone, from a legal perspective. Then allow the religious perspective do what it will.

I think once you start in on "you get a civil union in the courthouse and you get a marriage in the place of worship" then the result is you're pushing secular people out of marriage (and maybe they come from a long line of secular married people that they'd like to continue).

I just feel like marriage is a GOOD thing, people like it, most people want to do it at some point or other, and it should be a big tent. "It's awesome, folks! If you're interested, come on over!"

[alison]

Caitlein, I couldn't agree with you more.

[Auspicious]

I 98% agree with you, too, Caitlein. I think (I think?) we have the same basic philosophy about what should happen, I just enjoy quibbling over details of how it should happen, I guess. :run:

I'm on the Caitlein / Julie side of the issue, agreeing w/the Caitlein specifics. It's easier for me to remove myself from the religious aspect of it -- for obvious reasons.

[pstone]

*wishes he knew who Caitlein is*

[rainbabies]

*wishes he knew who Caitlein is*

username--gwendolyn

[pstone]

oh...Caitlein = Gwendolyn...heh

I am sure it offends a lot of peoples religion, jut like the thought of it offends lots of others.

Everything offends someone it seems, and since compromise is an extinct species everyone just fights fights and gets more mad.

[Gwendolyn]

I feel like if the response to same-sex couples wanting into the marriage game is to then take away stuff [rights, benefits, traditions] from heterosexuals so we can be equal, then that's just . . . like saying "our choices were to let gays in or burn down the house, so we burned down the house." It's just not the nation I want.

What I was suggesting was not to take away benefits, but rather make them available to everyone, from a legal perspective. Then allow the religious perspective do what it will.

I think once you start in on "you get a civil union in the courthouse and you get a marriage in the place of worship" then the result is you're pushing secular people out of marriage (and maybe they come from a long line of secular married people that they'd like to continue).

I just feel like marriage is a GOOD thing, people like it, most people want to do it at some point or other, and it should be a big tent. "It's awesome, folks! If you're interested, come on over!"

I also agree with you on this point, but I don't know how marriage under a civil union situation would be all that different from the way it is now. You still need a religious officiate to conduct your wedding even if you are not religious...I suppose the same "for hire" (truly for lack of a better description) ministers would still be available to perform a wedding.

I am assuming that for those with religious objections is that the sanctity of their marriage not be threatened by a couple that does not jive with their world view, so...they will probably belong to a worship community that espouses the same beliefs, therefore will conduct only hetero weddings. Then when this hetro couple says they had a religion X wedding we will all understand that excludes gay marriage.

I don't know. Everyone needs access to the same thing. I'm just trying to find a compromise that is constitutional.

Just because a man and woman are needed to procreate, does not mean that it is the best paradigm for raising a child as our society values it. There is a biological need for a sperm and an egg, but is by no means an argument for keeping a loving family in fear of separation because they do not have the same rights as those with the biological ability to make a baby...there is so much wrong with this...and is truly the saddest consequence of denying marriage rights to gays.

Peter, I was just responding to the comment that to be pro-gay marriage is anti-religious. There is one particular religious voice, that is not representative of all religion that must be answered anytime this debate is engaged.

[Sheherezade]

No personal attacks, please.

[pstone]

I understand, yet still am sad that nothing will ever be gained here.

Two sides won't see it the same way and people won't dare compromise or even discuss the larger issues.

Constitutional is also relative, since it is changeable as well so even that is not a final answer...sad really.

Thus I see the only way to abolish the whole thing, let everyone pay for themselves and don't ask for tax dollars from anyone else.

Jack and Jill best save for their retirement just like Bob and Tom.

Can't even say if there are kids because there are lots of sides on that too....

Fun!

[DCJenn]

Unfortunately, the inability for people to have a decent discussion (which by the way I think for the most part this was) is a direct by-product of our politicians who have successfully brainwashed everyone into the Us/Them mentality.

We have invariably discovered that for the most part, most of us agree on most aspects of most issues. There are always people who have some pretty fundamental beliefs on either side of the spectrum but generally over the years we usually pretty much fall to the more socially liberal, more fiscally conservative moderate stances. There may be distinct parts of various issues that strike home with people but generally people are able to find the middle ground. (and again, for some compromise = losing so they're happy off in their part of reality)

Even abortion- I remember once we had a debate that boiled down to people agreeing that there is a middle ground there too.

I think the best we can do is continue to keep having debates and discussion and try to get to the meaty parts of why we think the way we do. Not by cutting and pasting anonymous facts or referencing other documents but by really getting to the "I find this to be this way for this reason."

We have nothing to fear but the fear of learning from each other. (to paraphase)

J.