Bert and Ernie agenda

[Ginger Tea]

Non Christians get married all the time. Atheists marry. Saying that gays can't marry because it might change the way some churches operate makes no sense to me.

And some get a nice big church wedding because they want a nice big church wedding, never to set foot in that or any church again for the rest of their lives, barring other weddings.
Some churches are OK with this, others are not. Like I said in another post, I no longer see the two things together, chruch weddings are there for those that want the frills of a big wedding regardless of how deep their religious convictions are, being married in your town hall with the cleaner as your witness doesn't make you marriage any less legal than a full church and a gown that could end world debt.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

It's my opinion that there are two different things being debated here, and every time this conversation comes up, that is the case.

The two different things are "church marriages" and "giving gay people the same rights any citizen would have." Gay people, straight people, ANYONE, really, ought to be able to have a domestic contract with whoever they choose. They should be able to go down to the magistrate and get a marriage contract that give them all the good and bad that any married couple would have in order to stabilize their family. And their family should be whoever their family is, if that makes sense.

Now, the churches are a different matter. We can't force them to do anything. If they want to discriminate, fine. Those of us who are not okay with that will find a church that does not discriminate. If enough people do that, the discriminating churches will flounder. But that's not the same thing, in my opinion, as denying citizens their basic civil rights.

Personally, I think what muddies the issue is that church policy is tied up in civil rights, and it should not be. We're still trying to shoehorn law that applies to the entire population into religious beliefs (and narrow ones at that) and that is wrong.

Non Christians get married all the time. Atheists marry. Saying that gays can't marry because it might change the way some churches operate makes no sense to me.

If gay Christians want to marry, and their church insists on treated them like they're inferior, they need to find a church that doesn't. Personally, everyone in that church ought to find another church, but that's just me.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

and of course i forgot... not supporting something means you're trying your damnnest to stop it and there must be something wrong with you... or so that's what i seem to be getting from this... that i must be a bad person because i don't see things the way others do.

I hope that I'm not the one that gave you that impression. When I stated my bit on Marriage I was simply stating that I did not feel that the Government was going to pressure churches to do that which they don't want to do.

Once the right for Marriage to be for any two legal and consenting adults, the churches can make the decision to marry or not to marry as they see fit.

As I stated, I ran afoul of that for being in love with someone who was not a traditional Christian. My church refused us the rite and we had to go elsewhere.

I'm sure that something similar will happen if/when marriage equality becomes universally recognized in the whole of the US. Gays will leave certain churches to find ones more tolerant and the intolerant will find churches more in line with their way of thinking.

am i right? not supporting the agenda means i'm a hater right?

Not in my eyes. I never held truck with the whole "If you ain't with us, you're against us" bullshit. I don't support abortion but I'm still pro-choice. I support gun control, but I still believe that everyone should have the right to carry firearms.

It is possible to believe as you do. I have a friend who comes out and says publicly that he is uncomfortable around homosexuals. That he is openly and freely admits to his homophobia. He really does have a problem with it.

But he has also said that he'll just go out of his way to avoid them. He doesn't support marriage equality, but he admits that it it happens and they aren't getting anything more than a straight couple gets when they get married, he'll just grin and bear it. To his mind it's creepy, it's icky, but it would be fair to all and as such he doesn't want to hear about it but will just put on his blinders and carry on in life.

So it is possible to not like something, to not support something, yet at the same time not be directly opposed and militantly on the front-lines to combat something.

[Andara Bledin]

that's very easy for you to say in liberal California.

Anyone can say anything from anywhere. Words are cheap.

But no matter how much evil is allowed to happen because people are too wrapped up in their own problems to realize that human rights issues, even when they don't directly affect them this time, are their own problems, that does not make them haters. Self-absorbed, narcissistic, short-sighted, ignorant, lazy.... There are many things they may be, but hater is not the right label.

^-.-^

[smileyeagle1021]

Yes. Yes you are.

I'm not saying that apathy isn't bad, it just isn't hate.

^-.-^

that's very easy for you to say in liberal California.

Do you know what apathy has accomplished for those of us who live in the interior?
Well, let's see, the punishment for beating a gay man to within an inch of his life, causing long term hospitalization is 18 months in minimum security prison in Utah, if any prison sentence at all is given, if the hospitalization is for less time it is quite possible for the attacker to get no time at all.
There is a disproportionate number of LGBT people who are homeless because in the interior, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against LGBT persons in both housing and employment.
We haven't even bothered writing wills, because in the state of Utah inheritance agreements between gay couples are not binding, we could live together for half a century and have all the proper paperwork and all that needs to be done for it all to be undone when one of us dies is for a family member to say they didn't approve (we have zero probate rights in the interior).

As I've said, and I'll keep saying, we don't have the luxury of not caring anymore. Things are bad enough in the interior that you either are working to making the lives of LGBT persons equal, or you are helping those who are working to make sure we stay unequal...
Of course, I don't expect someone living in California to understand the realities of what life is like for the other half of the country.

Also, I'm a third generation activist, my grandma fought for women's suffrage, my mother fought racial discrimination in workplaces and in government (hell, for 5 years she was the government liaison for the Intertribal Council of Nevada, working to get the tribes what was due to them from the government). I was raised that silence is the same as agreement. If you stay silent against those who persecute, as far as I'm concerned, after being the third generation who has stood up against it, is the same as joining in the persecution. Don't like this painful truth that by your silence YOU have helped to beat gay men and YOU helped the legal system not punish the attackers, and YOU helped a storekeeper fire his gay employee because he was gay, and that YOU helped a landlord to evict a gay couple, then you need to talk to my grandma, because she's the one who taught me how to be a responsible citizen and how to speak out against wrong doing.

[jackfaire]

Let's look at a different scenario. Let's say this was 1911, how would history judge me if I said "I don't support the right for women to vote... I don't think they are inferior, but church might be forced to recognize women in positions of authority if they are allowed to vote and that violates my religious beliefs, so I'm not going to do anything to help them."
How about saying it's 1961, how would history judge me if I were to say "I don't think negros are inferior, but if there is integration my church might be forced to let negros in our congregation, and that violates my church's rights, so I won't do anything to help them."

That would be your right to believe that and believing your church would be forced to change still has nothing to do with believing those groups are inferior.

And she is half right while the government wont' force the churches to change people will. As gay marriage becomes even more acceptable people in her faith will change.

Not do anything to help someone attain rights that you don't feel you want to support is different than you being out there actively campaigning against the person getting rights.

That will never happen though ( Especially in the US ). So thats not really a valid reason, honestly. I wouldn't say she's a Hater(tm), but her belief is unfounded. I've never seen any gay marriage activist push for forcing churchs to marry them. They simply want the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I know that her belief is one I would consider unfounded and I wasn't endorsing her belief as correct what I was doing was pointing out that she is entitled to her belief and that her belief essentially just leads her to stay out of the whole thing not supporting it but not fighting it either.

[Mikkel]

All that people want, is to have the same legal rights that married people get.

And, I guess, if you ask PepperElf "Would you support that gay people can inherit their partners pension, after some kind of registration?" the answer would be yes.
Forcing churches to perform marriage doesn't make much sense anyway. "We now pronounce you husband and husband - and by the way, you'll burn in hell forever."
Really romantic .

[Ginger Tea]

I don't even see religions place in alot of marriages these days, sure alot get married in churches, but howmany are actual church goers and how many just wanted an all the frills wedding?

Some people do get married purely for financial reasons, way back when, you could live in sin for years and not have the same rights as your married friends, yet you could be more devoted to your spouce and see alot of these weddings end in divorce.
Flip side is, you don't end your relationship in a divorce, untill they changed the UK definitian of commonlaw partnerships, you just went your seperate ways, now you can have a divorce like break up involving legaly splitting assets.

Without looking into it, in the UK, commonlaw parnerships between hetrosexual couples (or atleast one man one woman it could be something else too.) are close to a par with legaly recognised marriages, be them performed in a church, gretna green or some registry office with the cleaner as your witness.
Sharing of pensions and all that jazz.

All that people want, is to have the same legal rights that married people get.

[Andara Bledin]

am I, am I really?

Yes. Yes you are.

I'm not saying that apathy isn't bad, it just isn't hate.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

To be blunt, yes, yes you are.

No, I don't think she is. She's not a hater, she's simply wrong. Its a common argument in a lot of communities that gay marriage will result in churches being forced to marry homosexuals against the church's will.

This is incorrect, but its not hatred. Its simply foolishness. Churches are allowed to choose to only marry members in good standing of their church, and they are free to determine what constitutes a member in good standing of their own accord.

Interracial marriage is a bad example. Its the more emotional example, the more striking example, and probably, in the grand scheme of things, the more accurate example. But it isn't the best example to use. A better example is that churches can refuse to perform inter-religious marriages. A rabbi is allowed to refuse to conduct a marriage between one of his parishioners and a Christian, and a pastor is allowed to refuse to marry a Christian to a Jew. Nevertheless, a Christian and a Jew can be married to each-other. They don't need to have their marriages downgraded simply because they don't share a religion.

Its equality, not marriage, that is the right. Marriage equality is a part of that. But the point gets confused because many people conflate religious marriage with civil marriage. 'We (the country) must allow homosexuals to marry' is twisted into 'We (the religion) must allow homosexuals to marry'.

PE is not hateful. She has been lied to, repeatedly and loudly, and by charismatic people. She has been persuaded to believe something untrue to be true. If it was true, I would be against gay marriage too. But it isn't, and in the United States, it never can be. In other countries, I don't know, maybe. But it can't be here, and never will be.

[Gravekeeper]

She believes that marriage by law will force her church to redefine what marriage is to them and to alter their very beliefs.

That will never happen though ( Especially in the US ). So thats not really a valid reason, honestly. I wouldn't say she's a Hater(tm), but her belief is unfounded. I've never seen any gay marriage activist push for forcing churchs to marry them. They simply want the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Being married by a church isn't a right.

Speaking from a country that's been there, done this. I find this whole fiasco kind of boggling still. Because, to me at least, I can't understand why not have same sex marriage. What's the problem? No one's going to park on your lawn and lure your kids to the gay side.

Gay marriage doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form and any perception of it affecting you is frankly your own prejudice.

[smileyeagle1021]

No. You're wrong in that.

am I, am I really?

Let's look at a different scenario. Let's say this was 1911, how would history judge me if I said "I don't support the right for women to vote... I don't think they are inferior, but church might be forced to recognize women in positions of authority if they are allowed to vote and that violates my religious beliefs, so I'm not going to do anything to help them."
How about saying it's 1961, how would history judge me if I were to say "I don't think negros are inferior, but if there is integration my church might be forced to let negros in our congregation, and that violates my church's rights, so I won't do anything to help them."
In both situations it has been proven that churches haven't been forced to change their beliefs because of either (unless the catholic church has been forced to allow women to be priests or westboro baptist been forced to allow blacks in), and I'd be willing to bet money you'd in retrospect say I was either a sexist or a racist for saying those things.

What do you suppose people will be saying in 2061 about people who use that argument against helping to grant rights to homosexuals?

Besides, something that a lot of people on this board, living comfortably in the more civilized coastal areas, have forgotten, people are DYING, hate crimes are alive and well in the country's interior (I've been assaulted twice and I consider myself damned lucky at this point), we no longer have the luxury of not caring either way. Especially with it looking like a candidate who supports forced exgay therapy has a major chance of winning the white house.

[Andara Bledin]

To be blunt, yes, yes you are.
When you say you don't support my right to marry, you say that you think I am inferior to you... that is the definition of hate right there.

No. You're wrong in that.

Some of us believe and think we should fight for basic human rights.

Others of us think we know better about how the rest of humanity should behave.

And, there are those who are so comfortable in their own lack of oppression that they don't actually consider or just don't care that others are being oppressed who do nothing but sit idly by and let it happen.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

To be blunt, yes, yes you are.
When you say you don't support my right to marry, you say that you think I am inferior to you... that is the definition of hate right there.

No no she isn't.

The only way she would be saying that is if she said, "I don't support gay marriage because I believe that you are inferior"

In fact her reasons have nothing to do with you being gay, Jimmy being gay, or anything to do with marriage by law.

She believes that marriage by law will force her church to redefine what marriage is to them and to alter their very beliefs.

I do not agree with those beliefs but I would give my life to defend her right to have them as I would die to defend your rights. I also vote for same sex marriage rights to be granted.

She is entitled to her beliefs none of which say you are an inferior person.

I am not friends with a lot of people that like sports because I am not a sports fan I do not believe sports fans to be inferior but if they asked me to let part of my taxes go towards building a new stadium that does not help me I would say no.

For me I have the belief that raising taxes to pay for something that cannot benefit me will hurt me.

She has the belief that granting same sex marriage rights will hurt her right to believe what she wants and thus hurt her.

Nothing is black and white. I would not want to live in a world where it was because worlds like that, everyone is evil.

[smileyeagle1021]

am i right? not supporting the agenda means i'm a hater right?

.

To be blunt, yes, yes you are.
When you say you don't support my right to marry, you say that you think I am inferior to you... that is the definition of hate right there.

I'm sorry, but this is a black and white issue, either you think I (or homosexuals in general) are equal and deserve the same rights, or you don't.

There is no room in the middle.
So which is it, are homosexuals equal and deserving of the same rights or are we inferior and not deserving?