Local church votes for marriage equality, ends practice of signing marriage licenses - Polidicks

What I'd like to see is for marriage to be completely unrelated to anything in government. Marriage is typically seen as a religious ceremony by religious people. It is a big reason why so many priests and pastors (not sure what the difference is) have the power the marry. Many would argue that marriage is very secular and is often not considered a religious ceremony, but then the whole argument revolves around semantics. I would rather argue from the perspective of an over zealous religious person who says that marriage is strictly a religious ceremony and will refer to it as that. Because of the separation of church and state: the state should have no authority to dictate anything about marriage. So in this sense, I'm arguing that instead of making homosexual couples being forced to get civil unions in order to receive benefits, that instead all couples should be forced to get civil unions in order to receive benefits, and that marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with this process. In this scenario, marriage would only be seen as a religious ceremony and would give no state given benefits to any couple. It would only be meaningful to those who are religious. To provide a comparison, baptism is a tradition pretty meaningless to non-Christians, but has huge meaning to Christians. Churches would have their own ability to determine if they wanted to marry homosexual couples or not because non public services have the right to discriminate. I believe a lot of the conflict here revolves around semantics which is rather annoying. I understand that marriage technically has no religious aspects about it, especially in definition. But when the opposing side is so persistent about the Biblical meaning of marriage and the other side is more concerned about rights, I think the best solution is to call it just a word and let the opposing side have it.

[QUOTE=Pepin;29324507]What I'd like to see is for marriage to be completely unrelated to anything in government. Marriage is typically seen as a religious ceremony. Many would argue that it is very secular and is often not considered a religious ceremony, but then the whole argument revolves around semantics. I would rather argue from the perspective of an over zealous religious person who says that marriage is strictly a religious ceremony. Because of the separation of church and state: the state should have no authority to dictate anything about marriage. So in this sense, I'm arguing that instead of making homosexual couples being forced to get civil unions in order to receive benefits, that instead all couples should be forced to get civil unions in order to receive benefits, and that marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with this process. In this scenario, marriage would only be seen as a religious ceremony. It would only be meaningful to those who are religious. To provide a comparison, baptism is a tradition pretty meaningless to non-Christians, but has huge meaning to Christians. Churches would have their own ability to determine if they wanted to marry homosexual couples or not because non public services have the right to discriminate. I believe a lot of the conflict here revolves around semantics which is rather annoying. I understand that marriage technically has no religious aspects about it, especially in definition. But when the opposing side is so persistent about the Biblical meaning of marriage and the other side is more concerned about rights, I think the best solution is to cal it just a word and let the opposing side have it.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. Marriage grants certain legal priveleges to couples and has a rather big effect on the outcome of property law. It also has a great deal of political, traditional, and societal meaning, and should therefore be a right for everyone. I agree that civil unions should be granted the same legal priveleges, but FORCING all couples, married or otherwise, to accept civil union status is idiocy.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29324578]You're missing the point. Marriage grants certain legal priveleges to couples and has a rather big effect on the outcome of property law. It also has a great deal of political, traditional, and societal meaning, and should therefore be a right for everyone. I agree that civil unions should be granted the same legal priveleges, but FORCING all couples, married or otherwise, to accept civil union status is idiocy.[/QUOTE] I am making the argument that marriage have no power at all and that the meaning should be reduced to only a religious ceremony. I do not see any justification in that traditional rituals should be a right to everyone. For that argument to be correct, then Bar Mitzvahs must also be open for anyone to have in that it is a religious ceremony practiced by a group of people that discriminate based on age, gender, race, and a few other factors. Given the context of my argument, I do not think it would be idiotic to have all governmental acknowledgement of couples to be void of anything religious. Please note that I'm continuing my use of marriage strictly as a religious ceremony and I am not willing to argue semantics. Marriage is a word that has a lot of meaning and adopting a new word to replace it just seems awkward as "married" is so engrained into our brains. I can certainly admit that this view isn't at all realistic, especially in that respect.

[quote]commitment to full acceptance of all people, regardless of race, gender, age, or sexual orientation[/quote] Isn't this the teaching of most religion anyway?

[QUOTE=Chickens!;29324886]Isn't this the teaching of most religion anyway?[/QUOTE] Funny how everyone but the religious seem to know this.

A church that supports gay rights? I think I misread

[QUOTE=Chickens!;29324886]Isn't this the teaching of most religion anyway?[/QUOTE] Depends on what religious text you are talking about. The Torah and most of The Bible makes the statement that a woman's purpose it to birth. Most Christians preachers try to get around this by quoting New Testament scripture which has a better portrayal of women, and also by pointing out that the inequality of women was more a social factor. I think the second is more honest. I do know The Bible says to not accept people who have sex with animals. it actually says to kill them.

[QUOTE=Sanius;29320751]that's not a valid reason for marriage to carry any sort of legal benefits marriage for romantic reasons is stupid beyond belief[/QUOTE] Get rejected recently? If you love someone, marriage is a way of saying you want to be with that person forever. Its a wonderful concept because its just further acknowledgement of your love for that person. Also its retarded that the church and state have some kind of monopoly on the word marriage. They're okay with civil unions, but as soon as you put the word 'marriage' into it, its wrong. Holy fuck, its a universal concept, even certain animals stay together forever.

[QUOTE=Sanius;29324149]I never stated that homosexuality is explicitly a choice[/QUOTE] You said you chose it which seems to indicate that choice takes priority over biology

Sanius is the first anti-homosexual homosexual. aside from catholic priests. LOL

[QUOTE=Pepin;29324864]I am making the argument that marriage have no power at all and that the meaning should be reduced to only a religious ceremony. I do not see any justification in that traditional rituals should be a right to everyone.[/QUOTE] yo the legal rights aren't arbitrary, they're specifically designed to help people better run a household together. without these benefits families all across the country will have a much harder time functioning wrt to finances and other important things like hospital visitation rights [QUOTE=Zeke129;29330783]You said you chose it which seems to indicate that choice takes priority over biology[/QUOTE] who cares when that terrible goddamn 'the state should just stay out of marriage' argument is cropping up again

[QUOTE=Earthen;29330774] If you love someone, marriage is a way of saying you want to be with that person forever.[/QUOTE] If you love somebody, loving and supporting them unconditionally is a way of saying that you want to be with that person forever. Marriage is an empty institution and it should have absolutely no backing by the government. Either homosexuals should receive the benefits that heterosexuals get for marriage, or nobody should. [editline]21st April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;29330783]You said you chose it which seems to indicate that choice takes priority over biology[/QUOTE] The question of whether homosexuality is something you're born with or something you choose makes absolutely no sense to me, and in the past I've tried my best to explain my thoughts on it based on such simple terms. Nobody* comes out of the womb and is suddenly sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex. Nobody can choose whether or not they are homosexual, by that I mean nobody can change their sexuality at the snap of their fingers. Sexuality, to me at least, is something that's very fluid and changes throughout your life depending on multiple factors, mostly social. *: I realise that there are special cases. Don't chew me out for saying "nobody."

[QUOTE=Sanius;29334966]If you love somebody, loving and supporting them unconditionally is a way of saying that you want to be with that person forever. Marriage is an empty institution and it should have absolutely no backing by the government. Either homosexuals should receive the benefits that heterosexuals get for marriage, or nobody should.[/QUOTE] Everybody should be allowed to marry, the fact that the current US government denies the same rights to homosexual couples is despicable, but saying that marriage is stupid, is stupid. Its just a different way of saying you love someone, the ring is a symbol of an eternal promise to love someone for eternity. I don't understand why you hate that.

[QUOTE=Earthen;29335020]Everybody should be allowed to marry, the fact that the current US government denies the same rights to homosexual couples is despicable, but saying that marriage is stupid, is stupid. Its just a different way of saying you love someone, the ring is a symbol of an eternal promise to love someone for eternity. I don't understand why you hate that.[/QUOTE] Saying that saying marriage is stupid is stupid is stupid. Not everybody has an all-encompassing view on what love is. To me, love is love regardless of how much money you throw at somebody, which is what marriage and engagement rings are. It's empty, greedy bullshit. And yes, I agree completely that either homosexuals should be able to marry or nobody should, so long as marriage is something that carries legal benefits.

[QUOTE=Sanius;29334966]If you love somebody, loving and supporting them unconditionally is a way of saying that you want to be with that person forever. [B]Marriage is an empty institution[/B] and it should have absolutely no backing by the government. Either homosexuals should receive the benefits that heterosexuals get for marriage, or nobody should. [/QUOTE] Says you. But regardless of wether gays want to marry out of love or for the legal benefits, marriage is still a powerful social symbol, and churches and governments enabling homosexuals to marry is an indicator of widespread social acceptance for who they are and their sexuality, and that's the main goal of the movement as far as I'm aware.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29331681]yo the legal rights aren't arbitrary, they're specifically designed to help people better run a household together. without these benefits families all across the country will have a much harder time functioning wrt to finances and other important things like hospital visitation rights[/QUOTE] Either you aren't reading what I'm saying or I am conveying it bad. The rights would be granted with civil unions. All couples would have to get a civil union in order to get those benefits and the process of marriage would be entirely separate. Marriage would only be ceremony, and or religious ceremony, and would grant no rights. Note that I'm keeping consistent my definition of marriage made in a previous post.

[QUOTE=Sanius;29335056]Saying that saying marriage is stupid is stupid is stupid. Not everybody has an all-encompassing view on what love is. To me, love is love regardless of how much money you throw at somebody, which is what marriage and engagement rings are. It's empty, greedy bullshit. And yes, I agree completely that either homosexuals should be able to marry or nobody should, so long as marriage is something that carries legal benefits.[/QUOTE] How is marriage about greed? Buying someone a ring hardly counts as greed. Its just a way of emphasizing your love through a traditional symbol.

[QUOTE=Bird;29335604]This is what religion should be about! Jesus accepted everyone, why shouldn't christians?[/QUOTE] Because middle aged people teaching young people hostilities and no one to challenge the middle aged people because they're sooo "wise".

[QUOTE=Sanius;29324016]marriage is a legal agreement. everything else is idealistic bullshit and a relic of christianity. why homosexuals want any part in the latter is beyond me[/QUOTE] And I proposed to my girlfriend because she plays Halo with me. :colbert: There's nothing wrong with an idealistic agreement. We chose to get married because the marriage represents a promise to stay with each other. Yeah, you don't NEED it, but you also don't NEED a computer so maybe you should follow your own logic and stop posting.

[QUOTE=Dalndox;29340609] There's nothing wrong with an idealistic agreement.[/QUOTE] Yes there is, when one group of people can do it but another can not.