Same Sex Marriage

[weeniegeniewife]

but why the f*** does the church get to say who marries outside of their church? For a group that doesn't even pay taxes they sure hold strong influence over the federal government.

ita.

[Chrisada]

Basically exactly what Heidi said. There is not one single valid reason gay marriage should be illegal. Not one. If a church forbids gay marriage that's fine, no one is making them marry two people together they don't want to marry. But why the f*** does the church get to say who marries outside of their church? For a group that doesn't even pay taxes they sure hold strong influence over the federal government.

Don't get me started!! Just had this discussion. Let me step away now.

[bobk]

Add "consenting" and "old enough to make a lifetime commitment" (however we define that age), and what exactly might be immoral?

If these are the only requirements, how we can bar a mother/daughter, two brothers, or a group of polygamists from marriage as well? There are some compelling reasons for changing marriage to allow SS only, but you lose a lot of ground to stand on if you continue to restrict those other scenarios. Even if you agree that our understanding of marriage should be changed, you have to admit that it is a radical change and many people are reluctant to go along with it simply because it is so radical, regardless of the morality of homosexuality.

[Cinderella]

I thought it was implied that we're discussing the law in relation to adults being allowed to marry as the law stands, since children can't typically marry. I know the marriage laws have evolved over time. In California during the 1800s the minimum age for marriage was as low as 12 with some marrying as young as 10. In most other States is was 13. That changed after a campaign in the 1900s where it was raised in most States to 16. Even now if you Google it online for the minimum age for marriage in California it will say there is no statutory minimum established as long there is parental consent.

As for the incestuous relationships I believe that was implied as well as the law stands in the discussion. Beyond being able to marry a cousin I don't think those types of relationships are allowed legality is most States. Though I do believe polygamy is alive and well in some States.

Even the reason for marriage has evolved over time. It didn't used to be about the romantic notion of two people being in love and wanting to spend their lives together. In many cases it was economical. Marriages were arranged in order to combine families for wealth with the exchange of gifts and money. Some people still marry for money but the idea of marrying for love has become more common and widely accepted in contemporary times in some places in the world such as the USA.

I think the exception to the rule being discussed and becoming more widely accepted is same sex marriages as the law stands. In some States it's already accepted but in the vast majority it's not. And in some that it has been accepted in it has been fought and over turned. I think some day it may be federalized but I'm unsure if I will see that day in my life time. But who knows? People who were alive in the 50's and 60's never thought they'd see the day a black man was president and that happened. I don't know if in 60 years we'll see a day an openly gay man is President and we have a first man as his marriage partner instead of a first lady. I don't know if that is still considered a politically radical idea or not as much as it would be to consider the acceptance of an incestuous couple marrying or an incestuous gay couple. That to me is more radical than accepting homosexual marriage.

[Vanquisher]

I get really tired of the "slippery slope" arguments. "What if someone wanted to marry their dog?" Please. This is silly rhetoric. I would never advocate for incestual marriage or forced marriage.

I actually see nothing wrong with polygamy. It is a religious thing in some faiths, and if we are to have true freedom of religion, then we should allow it. However, and again, incest and child rape, spousal abuse, forced marriage or coercion are not okay. I am not advocating for legal marriage of more than two people, but church marriages are fine, and leave them alone. Warren Jeffs= felon. Cody Brown= trying to live his weird religion.

All religions are weird to me and require things that I find to be skeevy. However, we have freedom of religion in this country last I checked. I choose none of the above.

Two consenting adults who want to get married should be able to do so. It isn't a slippery slope. It's called human rights, love, commitment, and the right thing to do.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

As long as they don't force churches to perform the marriages, I'm ambivalent. It's not a reason to vote for or against a political candidate for me personally. It's something that my faith takes a stance on as wrong but my personal feeling is that I'm going to love my neighbor and let God sort out the sins, blessings, etc

[HouseofWool]

In reality, we need to separate legal marriage from religious marriage. Churches get to decide which people they will marry. The rest of us can have civil ceremonies that confer the same rights and privileges.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[SuzySunshine]

As long as they don't force churches to perform the marriages, I'm ambivalent. It's not a reason to vote for or against a political candidate for me personally. It's something that my faith takes a stance on as wrong but my personal feeling is that I'm going to love my neighbor and let God sort out the sins, blessings, etc

This! We are not the ones to judge. My church can choose to marry or not marry who they want and they do. If someone has issue with that find a different church. I do believe families of all shapes and sizes should be afforded the legal coverages such as insurance regardless of how many moms or dads they have.

[Vanquisher]

In reality, we need to separate legal marriage from religious marriage. Churches get to decide which people they will marry. The rest of us can have civil ceremonies that confer the same rights and privileges.

Sorry, I disagree. I don't believe in God. Does that mean I'm not married? I am married in every sense of the word. It is a legal term. You can attach whatever religious ideals behind your marriage that you want to, but that doesn't mean I have to.

What about people who believe in a different God or Gods? Hindus? Buddists? Muslims? Catholics? Mormons? Protestants? Just because I choose to reject one more God (out of the millions over the course of mankind) than any monotheistic religion has rejected and a few more than some polytheistic religions, does that make me unworthy of being married?

No, sorry. I should be able to marry, and my gay friends and family should be able to marry. Churches should not be forced to marry people. EVER. That's ridiculous. I couldn't get married in a catholic church, even though it's beautiful, could I? No.

[Michele]

it is about the government being able to "morally" govern it's citizens

Coming back to this...how do you define these morals? Which morals are more important than other morals? It's morally wrong to kill someone and the government governs that. It's morally wrong to cheat on your spouse and some states govern that. If you believe it's morally wrong to love and have a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender, why shouldn't the government govern that as well? Because it's a victimless crime? Is that a good enough argument? Is it morally wrong for young women to marry rich old dudes for fame and fortune usurping their previous heirs? Should the government govern that?


disclaimer: I'm not religious, though I was raised Catholic so I do have some understanding of religion. My personal "faith" centers around be nice to people and treat others as you would want to be treated. I don't care who marries who unless the people involved care, i.e. forced arrangements or where one party is unable to make a sound decision.

[weeniegeniewife]

This about sums it up!

[McPants]

Unsurprisingly, I'm all in favor of same-sex marriages being legal and equal to straight marriages. In Sweden they've had legally recognised partnerships since the 90s (same rights as married people), however in 2009, they re-defined the term marriage to make it completely gender-neutral. The Swedish church assembly then voted in favor of allowing same-sex wedding ceremonies to be (voluntarily, not compulsorily) performed by ministers in the church. This has been pretty much a non-issue there and there have not been any identifiable negative effects whatsoever.

[niener]

Good questions Michele. I think the morals we're talking about governing here aren't those set by a religion but those that are inherent to a free, well functioning society (murder, theft and the like). Society morals and religious morals can overlap but that doesn't mean they're one in the same. Homosexuality is a religious moral issue, not a societal one - at least not in a society with freedom of religion as a fundamental tenet.

[weeniegeniewife]

Homosexuality is a religious moral issue, not a societal one.

Well-said!

[PrincessFiona]

Personally, I think that gay marriage should be as accepted as marriage between heterosexuals.

And.

I don't think Obama evolved. I think he flipped on this issue. Again, though, that's just my opinion. I do believe that if another politician (think John Kerry or anyone else) had changed completely on an issue like this that people would be up in arms about flip-flopping. Obama has gotten a pass on this, which .... is fine. We should recognize it though as an about-face.

Kris