Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[LascielsShadow]

You guys. OMG. MARYLAND PASSED THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT! Sorry for the capslock, but I'm seriously excited. Score one for the side of progress!

Edited November 7, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[savage_rose]

Yes. Although it's even more frustrating and hurtful to see comments like the ones on that site Tazzay linked to. It's disgusting that someone would talk about fellow human beings in that manner.

 

I simply cannot comprehend how being gay equates me or anyone else to being an animal that deserves to be locked up.

I think they have to de-humanize people or they'd have to change their beliefs--you'd think people would be more important than beliefs, but sometimes not to some people.

[demonicvampiregirl]

I'm really considering downloading some sort of comment blocker, since whenever I read the comments of an LGBT related article, I tend to end up in tears. But for some reason, I can't stop myself from reading them. So hopefully that'll kind of help, because I really don't like reading about how I'm subhuman and am going to Hell for something I can't change.

You're not subhuman. I use to be against gay rights and everything for a long time. I never met one and was against them then it started to change and I'm even shamed to admit I was. I don't think I ever said they was subhuman or anything. I usually just said it was wrong.

 

To me it's those who say things like that that are subhuman. I don't get what makes people think anyone is different from a homosexual or bisexual or whatever. They look just like us and act like us. Sexual preference is the only difference. :/

[Vhale]

Congrats on getting your rights passed in Maryland and Maine, I hope Washington works out for you all too. And woot that Minnesota rejected Bigotry!

 

Don't focus too much on the negatives, go with the positives. It's good to recognize that it exists, but bad to dwell on it too much.

[MysticTiger]

Four states passed Equal Marriage laws!! Rock on everyone! ♥

 

Now, if I could get my state to pass the same law, i'll be happy.

[Red2111]

Anyone else on here get horribly frustrated to the point of tears because we aren't treated equal and we have to fight for the rights everyone else has?

welcome to the struggles of obtaining civil rights that women and african americans and indians went through before you

 

its a long hard struggle, but prevail, keep a posative attitude and remember that peace and talks make more change that acts of violence and you will achieve the rights you diserve.

 

 

violence solves nothing, and neither does force. the challenge is showing and convincing the other side that their wrong and showing them the error in their judgement. they'll come around though.

 

 

via gay rights - i cannot express my happiness enough that this is being done at a state level and not federally!! this is a 10th Amendment issue, so i'm happy to see it being treated as such.

 

 

that said, i'm torn.

 

i beleive a homosexual couple should be allowed the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple; but the term marrage is something i define as a cerimony preformed by a religious institution.

 

becuase i define marrage this way, i feel it is not right to call it gay marriage, but soemthign else as most religions denounce homosexual acts and to force them to preform a marraige of this sort would be against their principles and freedom of religious expression.

 

i also feel that marriage is only preferormed by a religious institution and that other cerminonies performed by anyone other than a priest or religous figure shoudl be termed somethign else while given the same legal rights as a religous union.

 

 

it comes from the association of the word marriage and religion. and its this association and the fact people call it marriage that makes it so hard for states to allow for the badly needed equal rights.

[brairtrainer]

welcome to the struggles of obtaining civil rights that women and african americans and indians went through before you

 

its a long hard struggle, but prevail, keep a posative attitude and remember that peace and talks make more change that acts of violence and you will achieve the rights you diserve.

 

 

violence solves nothing, and neither does force. the challenge is showing and convincing the other side that their wrong and showing them the error in their judgement. they'll come around though.

 

 

via gay rights - i cannot express my happiness enough that this is being done at a state level and not federally!! this is a 10th Amendment issue, so i'm happy to see it being treated as such.

 

 

that said, i'm torn.

 

i beleive a homosexual couple should be allowed the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple; but the term marrage is something i define as a cerimony preformed by a religious institution.

 

becuase i define marrage this way, i feel it is not right to call it gay marriage, but soemthign else as most religions denounce homosexual acts and to force them to preform a marraige of this sort would be against their principles and freedom of religious expression.

 

i also feel that marriage is only preferormed by a religious institution and that other cerminonies performed by anyone other than a priest or religous figure shoudl be termed somethign else while given the same legal rights as a religous union.

 

 

it comes from the association of the word marriage and religion. and its this association and the fact people call it marriage that makes it so hard for states to allow for the badly needed equal rights.

when the government calls the unions of everyone civil unions (which most coservitives have shot down) then I will be for gay civil unions. Until the point in time though that this happens I want to see gay marriage because civil unions are not given the same rights as marriage, most notably the spouse being the next of kin and tax breaks

[satyr76]

welcome to the struggles of obtaining civil rights that women and african americans and indians went through before you

 

its a long hard struggle, but prevail, keep a posative attitude and remember that peace and talks make more change that acts of violence and you will achieve the rights you diserve.

 

 

violence solves nothing, and neither does force. the challenge is showing and convincing the other side that their wrong and showing them the error in their judgement. they'll come around though.

 

 

via gay rights - i cannot express my happiness enough that this is being done at a state level and not federally!! this is a 10th Amendment issue, so i'm happy to see it being treated as such.

 

 

that said, i'm torn.

 

i beleive a homosexual couple should be allowed the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple; but the term marrage is something i define as a cerimony preformed by a religious institution.

 

becuase i define marrage this way, i feel it is not right to call it gay marriage, but soemthign else as most religions denounce homosexual acts and to force them to preform a marraige of this sort would be against their principles and freedom of religious expression.

 

i also feel that marriage is only preferormed by a religious institution and that other cerminonies performed by anyone other than a priest or religous figure shoudl be termed somethign else while given the same legal rights as a religous union.

 

 

it comes from the association of the word marriage and religion. and its this association and the fact people call it marriage that makes it so hard for states to allow for the badly needed equal rights.

IMO, matrimony is the religious ceremony, and marriage is the legal ceremony.

[hazeh]

Besides, plenty of religious institutions would be happy to marry gay couples. It's not a black and white thing.

 

And yeah, marriage was first and still is a secular arrangement. It was the transfer of property, really, before religion started playing a factor in it in some cultures. Now it's simply a contract between consenting adults and their legal government, and optionally their religious involvement of choice.

The government has a predominant role in marriage, not religion.

 

Holy matrimony is the religious service.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Red2111]

satyr - then they need to reclassify imo and make the difference for peoepl to get over the stigma. my point was that majority perception is marriage = religous ceremony (including myself) which is why its such a battle.

 

becuase most religions do not condone homosexual acts and people percieve allowing "gay marriage" as forcing religous institutions to recognized nad preform these ceremonies. which is unconstitutional.

 

 

ofcourse, i also feel that reguardless of sexual preferance, Government has no business in matiral affiars. Judical branch, yes, but not the local, state or federal govs.

 

 

briar - i'm conservative and i'd be for classifying non religous unions as civil unions and religious unions as marriages but giving each equal legal rights. infact, most conservatives i've talked to, when its put this way, are happy with the compromise.

 

its the fringe Homosexuals that are concerned with the same name for their union rather than the legal rights that take issue.

[hazeh]

So, I'm curious then. Married Atheists are then, in fact, not married, but civil-unioned?

[NobleOwl]

i beleive a homosexual couple should be allowed the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple; but the term marrage is something i define as a cerimony preformed by a religious institution.

 

This is linguistically and historically incorrect. "Matrimony" is a Christian ceremony, in Judaism it's the nissu'in, et cetera, et cetera. If that were not so, everyone married at a registrar's office would not have a marriage license.

 

becuase i define marrage this way, i feel it is not right to call it gay marriage, but soemthign else as most religions denounce homosexual acts and to force them to preform a marraige of this sort would be against their principles and freedom of religious expression.

 

Ah, but no one would be forced to perform a gay wedding, and in some cases, like mine, because my synagogue allows gay marriage, they are not allowed to perform one because it is against state law, and by legally preventing them from doing so, they're religious freedom and expression is interfered with.

 

i also feel that marriage is only preferormed by a religious institution and that other cerminonies performed by anyone other than a priest or religous figure shoudl be termed somethign else while given the same legal rights as a religous union.

 

Why give them the name marriage when they invented the term matrimony to denote a religious marriage?

 

it comes from the association of the word marriage and religion. and its this association and the fact people call it marriage that makes it so hard for states to allow for the badly needed equal rights.

 

Misinformation, you mean. There is no connotation between the word "marriage" and religion. Marriage is the English word meaning the legal union of individuals that creates kinship as a new family. Matrimony is the sacrament used by Christians.

[Red2111]

So, I'm curious then. Married Atheists are then, in fact, not married, but civil-unioned?

to me yes.

 

same legal rights any other "married" couple. but their union, becuase its not religous is technically nto a marriage to me. nto in name anyways.

[brairtrainer]

to me yes.

 

same legal rights any other "married" couple. but their union, becuase its not religous is technically nto a marriage to me. nto in name anyways.

Red2111 while other conservetives (my parents) have agreed with civil unions as base right now thanks to those who have been elected (and in other states) civil unions are against the law as a whole or are made illegal by an amendment to the constitution of those states

[NobleOwl]

to me yes.

 

same legal rights any other "married" couple.  but their union, becuase its not religous is technically nto a marriage to me.  nto in name anyways.

You do realise that "marriage" is in no way associated with religion from a linguistic point of view? And that, for example, Catholics don't consider Jews or the Buddhists down the street "married"?

 

I'm not saying your wrong to hold that opinion, I'm just trying to understand it.

 

So, by your view, am I married?

 

Edit: Asked as a lesbian who had a proper nissu'in and erusin, ketubah, broken glass and all.

Edited November 7, 2012 by NobleOwl

[Red2111]

You do realise that "marriage" is in no way associated with religion from a linguistic point of view? And that, for example, Catholics don't consider Jews or the Buddhists down the street "married"?

 

I'm not saying your wrong to hold that opinion, I'm just trying to understand it.

 

So, by your view, am I married?

 

Edit: Asked as a lesbian who had a proper nissu'in and erusin, ketubah, broken glass and all.

for me, it matters less about the religion and more abotu who preformed the ceremony.

 

whether its a priest in a catholic service or a monk or a medicine man from some back water tribe. a religous leader is just that, the claimed leader that repersents a religion in any given area.

 

 

so yes, if your marraige was performed by a religous leader then your union is imo a marriage.

 

 

also, i didn't say it was literally associated with marriage i said the PERCEPTION of the word was associated with religion. the problem comes from this PERCEPTION and ASSOCIATION.

 

after all, perception = reality.

[Shirubia]

Several of my best friends are gay, and I must say, they are some of the most funny, sensible, supportive and non-judgemental people I know.

 

I am 100% supportive of the gay marriage/rights, they deserve to know and experience happiness.

[Red2111]

guys i'm merely explaining why i believe theres such an issue with gay marriage rights getting passed legilsatively.

 

 

its because of the average persons perception of the word marraige beinf associated heavily with religion. and used myself as an example since i happen to share that association to better explain my point.

 

 

edit - majority of people are for homosexuals recieving the same legal rights for marriage, but are against calling it marriage. you want to solve the issue, you find its root. imo the root of the issue here is the perception that Marriage is associated with a religous practice.

 

 

which is why your hear people defining marraige as a "union between man and woman"

Edited November 7, 2012 by Red2111

[diannethegeek]

guys i'm merely explaining why i believe theres such an issue with gay marriage rights getting passed legilsatively.

 

 

its because of the average persons perception of the word marraige beinf associated heavily with religion.  and used myself as an example since i happen to share that association to better explain my point.

 

 

edit - majority of people are for homosexuals recieving the same legal rights for marriage, but are against calling it marriage.  you want to solve the issue, you find its root.  imo the root of the issue here is the perception that Marriage is associated with a religous practice.

 

 

which is why your hear people defining marraige as a "union between man and woman"

Public perception of the definition of a word is just simply not a good enough reason to deny people equal rights. We have proven that time and time again.

 

People perceived women to be weaker, people of color to be less intelligent, immigrants to be less loyal, and those perceptions were 1. proven false and 2. should not and do not matter where the law is concerned. Separate but equal is not true equality.

 

Let the churches and temples sort out whether or not they will perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but those that do want to perform them should absolutely, 100% be allowed to and those ceremonies (as well as ceremonies performed by secular judges) should hold equal weight under the law every, single time. Whether or not people learn to understand the difference between marriage and matrimony.

Edited November 7, 2012 by diannethegeek

[Red2111]

Public perception of the definition of a word is just simply not a good enough reason to deny people equal rights. We have proven that time and time again.

 

People perceived women to be weaker, people of color to be less intelligent, immigrants to be less loyal, and those perceptions were 1. proven false and 2. should not and do not matter where the law is concerned. Separate but equal is not true equality.

 

Let the churches and temples sort out whether or not they will perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but those that do want to perform them should absolutely, 100% be allowed to and those ceremonies (as well as ceremonies performed by secular judges) should hold equal weight under the law every, single time. Whether or not people learn to understand the difference between marriage and matrimony.

agreed 100% but doesn't change the reality of the issue and the reaity of human nature when it comes to things like this.

 

 

it may have been proven as being flase and shouldn't matter inthe eye of the law; but that woudl entail peopel learnign from history, which is imo a bit too much to ask from our current society.

 

 

as such, i point this out as the root of our problem here in getting homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals in terms of marriage.

[diannethegeek]

agreed 100% but doesn't change the reality of the issue and the reaity of human nature when it comes to things like this.

 

 

it may have been proven as being flase and shouldn't matter inthe eye of the law; but that woudl entail peopel learnign from history, which is imo a bit too much to ask from our current society.

 

 

as such, i point this out as the root of our problem here in getting homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals in terms of marriage.

The root of the problem actually goes much deeper, I would argue, and homophobia comes in many packages. But whatever the root of the problem is I am not willing to just roll over and say "Welp, the American people don't understand so I guess we'll just forget the whole thing."

 

You seem to be suggesting that we can't have marriage equality in this country simply because people don't understand. If we sit around and wait for them to understand then it will never happen. But if our government stands up and the people stand up and say that marriage has many definitions and they're all equally good then people will see that the world doesn't end and their own marriages aren't weakened and maybe, just maybe, we as a society can move forward from here and worry about the real issues in the world.

[KageSora]

i'm conservative and i'd be for classifying non religous unions as civil unions and religious unions as marriages but giving each equal legal rights.  infact, most conservatives i've talked to, when its put this way, are happy with the compromise.

 

its the fringe Homosexuals that are concerned with the same name for their union rather than the legal rights that take issue.

Why do you think gay people want the same name for their union? Could it be the same reason many conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction of horror to the idea of their marriage being called a civil union?

 

We may not like it, but words shape our perceptions of people and marriage carries a certain weight. You don't react the same if you hear two people say "We got married" vs "We now have a civil union". Marriage carries more weight, more perceived authenticity, more perceived validity.

 

Until you can make "civil union" carry the same weight in the collective mind of the population, people will just think "Oh, those gays don't have a real marriage, they just have a civil union".

[CrossingStar]

how would us straight people like it if someone said "oh u cant be with that person because he isnt your gender" we wouldnt be happy about it right?

Indeed. This is an argument that has crossed my mind many times before. How can someone be so rude as to tell people who they should love? I makes absolutely no sense.

 

One nurse on a TV show said something very moving that made me think: "Why is it that everyone asks the lesbian, 'when did you know you were attracted to other women,' and nobody ever asks a straight girl when she knew she was attracted to men?" It was truly a thought provoking question.

 

So why is it so strange to love someone of your same gender? Please, someone, tell me what argument could possibly be so convincing. And what about transgenders? I'm Otherkin and pagan myself, so I understand being different. But please tell me why people hate these groups so badly.

[Rosedamai]

I am going to share a very personal story. I have stated here and elsewhere that I am a bisexual. I also live in a country where there isn't any sort of way for a non-heterosexual couple to get married, and the public perception of homosexuals is, well, largely ignorant.

 

My ex gf cannot come out to her parents that she's a lesbian, and because she is much, much older than I am, she succumbed to the pressure of getting married with a guy. She's deeply unhappy, calls me up and cries, and I can see how she's probably going to need some counselling in her life.

 

ETA: I also hate the fact that you guys are calling a marriage something that's associated with religion. Plenty of people were marrying without it. What, most marriages where I live are irreligious. So they're all unmarried? Not every country has a very strict religious background.

Edited November 7, 2012 by ylangylang

[demonicvampiregirl]

to me yes.

 

same legal rights any other "married" couple. but their union, becuase its not religous is technically nto a marriage to me. nto in name anyways.

So since I don't believe in god and I get married to someone who does or shares the same meaning it's not a real marriage at all? :/ Seriously this whole marriage/religion crap is old.