Wednesday, 08 September 2010
-
I'm Not Against Gay Marriage, I'm Against A Law That Allows It
I saw the post on the outrage of the week about the athletic director losing her job... and I am so sick of hearing the media and politician's polarized viewpoints. My opinion, which I know many others have, seems to not be heard, so hear it is.I am not against gay people being married. If you are gay and want to have all the rights that a married couple have, I believe you should be allowed.
The thing with the gay marriage law is that many Christians and other religious groups fear that this may mean that an organization that is considered non-profit or religious may have to conform to the law or endure a law suit based on the law. In other words, as in the case of the athletic director from that Catholic School that got fired because she married her lesbian lover, the school may have to endure a lawsuit or not allow that to happen.
There are many religious organizations that don't believe in premarital sex or divorce, and thus don't allow their leaders to be engaged in either. You may call it discrimination -- but they should be allowed to hold those beliefs.
There are many mosques, churches, and temples that don't allow women to be in leadership or a member of the clergy. You may call it discrimination -- but they should be allowed to hold those beliefs.
There are many religious groups that don't believe in gay marriage, and thus don't employ people who are gay. You may call it discrimination -- but they should be allowed to hold those beliefs.
It's about separation of church and state. There are and have been numerous lawsuits against churches and other religiously affiliated organizations that have been sued by women for discrimination. If gay marriage becomes law, these organizations will also have to endure legal scrutiny regarding that.
If the public doesn't want religious organizations and their morality dictating laws, then the public should not dictate the beliefs and regulations of religious organizations.
A couple side notes: What I believe personally is that if you are gay you can be a member of the church because being gay is a sin just like having extramarital/premarital sex, divorce, gossiping, lying, cursing your parents, etc. BUT, a leader is held to higher scrutiny and so he/she should not be actively living in sin on purpose, nor should the church condone sin (i.e. perform gay marriage ceremonies, or other things like gossip in a sermon, etc).
Also, you may be tempted to call me or others bigoted, but what will that do?
One side calls the other bigoted and ignorant, while the other calls back that these people are immoral or abominations or whatever... seriously, how does any of that get us anywhere? That just tears the country apart and not towards compromise or understanding.
What do you think?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (140)
Maybe the homosexuals should just accept that the church won't want them around so they should get married and live their lives seperate of the judgemental assholes. Just sayin. If I were gay I wouldn't be trying to force myself into a group of people that doesn't accept me. It's just asking for trouble. You can follow God on your own.
... This really doesn't make any sense to me.
Gay marriage shouldn't be legal because of separation of church and state? What? Marriage isn't always a spiritual institution. In fact, it's a government contract. So... legalizing gay marriage isn't interfering with the rights of religious people. They just view it that way.
Churches don't have to marry any two straight people now, with the current laws. Why would that change?
I believe that you are correct in that people have there rights to there beliefs, however I also think that the Southern states of The United States were wrong to fight over slavery and what really makes a black different then a gay? I mean a black was born black. A gay was born gay. There seems to be debate on that subject. I am straight and I know I can not feel attracted to a women. If a gay goes gay why would they risk being unequal and otherwise hurt by peoples words and harsh assumptions. I don't think so. Women have fought for our rights to vote, among other things. I believe just because someone is different doesn't mean that they should be condemed to hell. Blacks enjoy the right to vote, so why is it so different to let a gay enjoy the right to marry? It's wrong to think it's okay to deny someone there rights when it was just the way you were raised or the way you read the bible. I love God, however I think that some parts in the Bible are wrong. This is my belief and I have the right just like everyone else to say what I feel even if everyone else is stupid. I am sorry, but I just am to passionate about these kinds of injustices.
However, it was a very well written post.
The first thing they need to remove is tax benefits for married couples.
That's actually a very interesting view. In today's society you can be sued for just about anything and I swear half the money in America is spent on litigation and all the paperwork and time spent in dealing with lawsuits. You would think the woman who was fired from her athletic director position would have realized that her actions would have consequences. You might not be signing a contract with your employer but it's obvious that they will expect you to cohere to their rules. Why would you join a religious organization that doesn't share your beliefs anyway?
@Ethonox@xanga - YES.
I like gay sex. Cowboy gay sex. I'll support whatever law allows for that to happen more often.
the outrage of the week of the athletic director losing her job is really outrageous in itself. it would be like applying and being accepted to a job a the hooters restaurant, then refusing to wear the tank top and shorts uniform but wanting to wear a turtleneck and pants to work
read the policies before and if you don't agree with the contract, don't apply for that job, then say they are discriminating. as for gay marriage, some straight couples can't even stay married for long, so give other people a chance to redeem the sanctity of a loving marriage.
As a gay person I pay taxes into all kinds of stuff for our city, state and federal governments. I deserve the same rights as everyone else. My money is good. But my sexual orientation is not. Seems a bit unfair. Straight married couples get tax benefits. Some of these couples don't even stay together. But a gay couple who has been in a monogamous relationship for 20 years are denied the same civil rights as a straight couple.
It's more than just about being able to get married as a gay couple.
It's about being considered a lower class than the rest of society.
No law is being proposed that would force any church to marry gay people. The people protesting the firing of the Detroit dean are protesting the Church's actions, not trying to change the nation's law to force the Church to do anything.
I'm sorry but you say
"it's about separation of church and state'
exactly. THESE PEOPLE DONT WANT GAYS TO BE ALLOWED TO MARRY BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THEIR RELIGION, THEY WILL "GO TO HELL". So saying gays are not allowed to get married is doing exactly that, making laws based on religion.@VictoriaEllis0380@xanga - Extremely well put.
@VictoriaEllis0380@xanga - very true. :(
Either way, gay marriage, common-law marriage, or legal marriage SHOULD be legal. And I'm not talking about religious ceremonies. I'm talking about legal recognition that two people are a union. I don't give a shit about what religious organizations are doing, who they hire, who they fire, etc. If separation of church and state were completely true, these religious extremists would not be trying to force their views on everyone else and make sure laws don't get passed that would make GLBT people equal. If they were true Christians, they love EVERYONE and mind their own damn business.
I agree that religious organizations can do whatever the hell they want, but they have to stay contained in their own organization, and not impose their views on people who want nothing to do with their organization.
I pretty much agree with this post. However- I am completely fine with gay people getting a civil marriage union. The way that I agree is that I am Catholic and if a gay person were to get married in the Catholic Church it would be hypocritical against the Church's law. I guess that is my example of what you say in thatreligious organizations don't allow gay marriage or premarital sex or divorce.
first off.. no one gives a flying f*ck if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple. although, you're conveniently ignoring the reality that there are plenty that DO.
the issue is: there are couples formed by consensual, legal adults in this country that are not recognized because they are same-sex. this discrimination is based on a religious belief. i don't know about anyone else here, but i have a problem with being told what i can and cannot do... by a religion i don't adhere to.
by your logic, the state shouldn't recognize ANY marriages. i'd be all for that, too. people shouldn't receive special privileges just because they're married.
@VictoriaEllis0380@xanga - This.
who ever wrote this doesn't know a thing about constitutional law and should stop regurgitating shit they don't understand. you are a bigot, unoriginal, with no genuine insight.
Yet another example of datingish fail. How about some fact-checking before you try to sound smart?
When it comes down to it, the law is the law of the LAND. It is not made to specifically cater to you or your beliefs but it should cater to everyone who is in that land and everyone's beliefs. To do this it has to make exceptions for everyone while protecting basic rights (life, liberty, happiness, etc).
If Group 1 is happy to have a right (that causes no physical harm to any), and Group 2 doesn't want Group 1 to have that right and calls for the removal and prevention of them obtaining that right... Does that sound like justice? Does that sound like it is something that should be happening in AMERICA?
Answer that question.
Marriage is founded upon religion. I do think there needs to be a separation of state and church. Marriage is a religious thing, therefore I think it should only be deemed a marriage if consented through a religion you choose to be apart of. It's kind of hard because now it's already been like this for a long time. I think it would be good if there was a thing like "civil unions" for people who want to be united under the government, etc. The word "marriage" has turned into a thing anyone and everyone can do despite their religion. Marriage should've stayed a religious act and there's no reason anyone should feel left out of it because it is founded upon religion, there would be no marriage without religion so if someone is not religious or following a specific religion that includes marriage, I don't see why you would be allowed to get married. If it is ever possible in our future, I think it'd make more sense to just rename "marriage" (in the government) to civil unions and leave marriage for churches to handle.
It's about separation of church and state. There are
and have been numerous lawsuits against churches and other religiously
affiliated organizations that have been sued by women for
discrimination. If gay marriage becomes law, these organizations will
also have to endure legal scrutiny regarding that.
Organizations being successfully sued are ones that accept tax money, money that belongs to all of us, but still want to discriminate. That is not allowed, due to separation of church and state.
Most of the source of these 'concerns' are simple fear-mongering and ignorance. As has already been pointed out, churches are not forced to marry anyone they don't wish to and there are no plans to change that.
The argument over the legalizing of gay marriage is over simply the secular government-endorsed contract, and all the various rights and priviledges it grants.
It's pretty clear-cut that most of those fears are based in ignorance and intentional fear-mongering, mostly due to religious bigotry, rather than reality.
Also, being nice and not pointing out the ignorance and bigotry doesn't get anywhere for removing discriminatory laws. The LGBT rights movement didn't get much of anywhere being quiet and hiding in the closet, did it?
If the public doesn't want religious organizations and their morality
dictating laws, then the public should not dictate the beliefs and
regulations of religious organizations.
While we do do this, it is generally quite limited. You have a lot more leeway to abuse your kids and withhold medical treatment from them if you cite a religious dogma than otherwise. You can pass Herpes to infants and, even if they die, not get regulated by the health codes if it's because of a religious ritual. There are many examples where religious groups get exceptions from laws the rest of us have to follow. Are we that concerned that religions aren't allowed to do human sacrifices or completely ignore all building codes and zoning laws?
i don't think you're a bigot, necessarily, but you do sound naive, to me. there are such things as non-religious ceremonies. marriage doesnt necessarily need to be done in front of a priest/pastor, at a church. my boyfriend and i intend to have a non-religious ceremony when we are married because he is jewish and i'm catholic, so it's just less drama. the church already has the right to refuse to marry two straight people on various other grounds - many churches make you and your partner attend meetings to make sure you are ready for marriage, and can refuse you if they feel you aren't. or, if you and your to-be spouse are different religions, then many churches require the non-catholic spouse to either convert or agree to raise any children the couple has catholic. if they refuse to do so, then the church may refuse to marry the couple.
my point is that, if gay marriage were legal and a particular church did not want to marry a gay couple, that church can simply refuse to do so, and the gay couple could either find a church that was willing to marry them (and i don't doubt that there are some out there), or have a non-religious ceremony. it really shouldn't be as complicated as it is made.
@rabbitsarecool14@xanga - I agree with your views 100%. Make civil unions for everyone, and marriage just for religious institutions.
What I believe personally is that if you are gay you can be a member of
the church because being gay is a sin just like having
extramarital/premarital sex, divorce, gossiping, lying, cursing your
parents, etc. BUT, a leader is held to higher scrutiny and so he/she
should not be actively living in sin on purpose, nor should the church
condone sin (i.e. perform gay marriage ceremonies, or other things like
gossip in a sermon, etc).
I agree with the author on the aforementioned.