Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Tazzay]

Marriage isn't religous, and it practically never HAS been. The Egyptians got married to each other in ancient times, and they didn't read from a bible or anything like that, nor were they Christians.

 

My ex gf had parents who are extremely homophobic, and they actually kicked her out a few weeks ago, so she now lives with her real father. I supported her while we were in a relationship, and even tried to convince her parents that they should accept her for who she is.

 

But, I will add this....

 

Gays/ lesbians should have the right to marry who they love. Marriage is not just to raise children, and most gays do not marry for this purpose. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Tazzay

[Fuzzbucket]

Same rights for everyone please.

 

BUT - what I would like to see is what they have in France. The RELIGIOUS ceremony is NOT a legal one. You HAVE to have a civil ceremony to be LEGALLY married.

 

So you all have to go to church (if you want the religious thing) and to the mayor's office if you actually want to be legally married - and if you don't go THERE, you aren't married no matter what your priest or rabbi did - end of.

 

So - in effect religion is just an extra for those who DO believe in it all.

 

In the UK because of a freak of law - the C of E is the established church ! - ministers of THAT church and ONLY that church are automatically state officials who CAN legally marry people. Ministers of other religions would have to train up and get accredited if they wanted to do it - and at the moment they aren't allowed to marry people in their churches - all ridiculously complicated.

 

But the having to have a civil thing means that it is equal for everyone who goes through the hoops, and religion stays out of it in terms of ACTUALLY being married.

 

Which takes the religion thing right out of it and removes that SILLY objection to gay marriage.

[prairiecrow]

I am a Canadian marriage commissioner. I am also Wiccan clergy. The two often intersect, but not always.

 

Up here, marriage is by legal definition a CIVIL procedure, quite independent of religion. (And yes, gay marriage has been legal here for some time, called "gay marriage", and guess what? The world didn't come to an end! How shocking!)

[HeatherMarie]

(And yes, gay marriage has been legal here for some time, called "gay marriage", and guess what? The world didn't come to an end! How shocking!)

Very, very reassuring for us still fighting for it. If it can happen elsewhere, hopefully it will eventually happen here.

[MysticTiger]

after all, perception = reality.

Perception, by definition, is not reality. "It's our mind's way of organizing, identifying and interpreting sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment". A paranoid schizophrenic can perceive a person in front of them, however, it can be a hallucination. 3D Movies are a great example of how Perception is not reality. The things coming out of the screen at us aren't real, however, we perceive them to be because our senses (our eyes) are telling us they are.

 

Marriage isn't associated with religion. The act of a WEDDING is associated more with Churches/religion. A "Marriage" has been modernized to stand for a legal bond between two people. You don't even need to have a wedding or a priest to get married. People are so hung up on the idea of "One Man, One Woman". Let me remind you that it used to be "One White Man, One White Woman". Interracial coupling was basically the past's version of gay marriage. Apparently, we don't learn from our past.

[Red2111]

i 100% support what fuzz bucket suggested.

 

as well as just removing the government entirely from the Marriage/union issue (meaning no legal rights for anyone based on marital status and it being purely a symbolic ceremony) take it from me and likely a lot of the LGBT community. you can live with someone and be married to them in everything but that certificate. my fiancee and i have been living together since 06 and own all property jointly as well a have joint accounts. we're married in all but legal recognition and me assuming his last name.

 

the only reason we're getting married, is because both of us are ready to have kids and i refuse to have kids out of wed lock; and from pressure of family and friends to make that final commitment. if it wasn't for being ready to start a family, marriage wouldn't be an issue we're concerned with tbh.

 

 

vamp girl - your missing my point. to me its about who PERFORMS the ceremony, not what the people believe. after all, if you dont believe in religion, your not going to have a religious figure perform your ceremony

 

 

look, ya'll dont agree with the fact that i define Marriage as a religious ceremony and i was never asking anyone to, all well and good you guys are entitled to your opinion as i'm entitled to mine. but i'm not trying to change your guys opinion on the issue or get you lot to define Marriage as a religious ceremony, so i'm asking you guys to extend the same respect to my 1st amendment rights and stop trying to change mine.

 

i honestly suggest, we agree to disagree on this point, you guys wanted to know my backing for my belief, why i believe that way and to explain it a bit. i was fine with that. but now its changed from questions to trying to change my belief and convincing me i'm wrong, which isnt cool.

 

 

 

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.

 

and your putting words and assumptions in my mouth. quote to me where i suggested or stated anything you posted here.

 

all i've done thus far is argue what i think the root of the problem is.

 

what i stated was, you have to understand the root of the problem before you can fix it. logically since the root of the problem is word association then to fix said problem your aim should be to prove that association as false. otherwise, you get no where. you can't expect change over night, Women didnt, african americans didnt and neither did Indians. i dont know why its assumed this issue would be any different.

 

as i stated. its my belief the issue comes from the association of marriage and religion; and that by allowing it religious institutions would be forced to preform those marriages which their ethically against. (an infringement of 1st amendment rights)

 

another part of solving the problem, being able to see the issue from both sides. something neither side is apparently able or willing to do.

 

 

 

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".

 

of which i ask you in return, where are you priorities? which is more important to you? to be able to classify your union the same as a heterosexual couple or to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. and you have to pick one over the other.

 

 

fighting both battles at the same time will get you no where and has gotten your community no where, which is why you guys need to prioritize the battle. pick which battle is more important to you and focus on that, then use the ground you gain by completing the 1st goal to win the 2nd. its a simple strategy that worked rather well for other demigraphs that were discriminated against with civil rights issues.

 

 

also, ask most heterosexual couples what was most important to them when getting married, they'll tell you it was the tax breaks hence why i stress, fight the legal battle first, use that ground to do away with the association of the word. and also, if you have the same rights legally, does it really matter if people personally think that about your union? just because you get the legal definition to define all unions as marriages doesn't mean those people that will think that way will stop being biggots. if a person is going to think "Oh, those gays don't have a real marriage, they just have a civil union" they're not going to change their minds because of the law. biggots are biggots, you can't change that because their being biggots out of fear and hate.

 

if anything, pity them for their narrow mindedness and bad karma and ignore them. i do the same when i'm discriminated against. its a reflection against them, not you. after all, this is a fight to get you guys legal rights your entitled to, not to change peoples personal perceptions. as disgusting as their biggoted views are, they are allowed to believe that and you do have to respect their 1st amendment rights regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

[hazeh]

I would say the priority is the word. If we get the same word, then the rights will follow, because then there would be absolutely no argument left. None.

 

If it's the same word and the same action, there would be no choice but to address the same rights. Going from "separate but equal but not really equal" only makes the process unnecessarily painful and longer than it ever needs to be.

 

Once gay marriage is legal, because it should be an option- getting married is a choice, not a mandate- to anybody who wants to utilize it, then everyone can get into scuffles about where the government should interfere in marriages and where it shouldn't.

 

Equality. It's an important word here. Civil union =/= Marriage. Only Marriage = Marriage. My moms didn't get civil unioned, they got married. That's really all there is to it. Giving homosexuals the short end of the stick first is discrimination. Address the religious component after everyone is given their freedom of choice.

 

Having a certificate or a marriage license may not mean much to some people, but it doesn't mean other people don't. The rights that come along with that certificate are very important at federal level. When it comes to families. My moms STILL have to categorize themselves as single on their taxes and that's STUPID.

 

 

 

(also, before marriage was between "a man and a woman", it was between a man, the woman's family, and the dowry of cows or pigs that was paid between them. The woman didn't even have a say in the marriage.)

[TikindiDragon]

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".

*prods*. I know I've been through this before. Really, guys....

 

People will use the term marriage wether it's technicaly the legal term or not. There have been Civil Unions here in the UK for a while, and trust me they're always referred to as marriages. Notice the use of language in this article, this article, and also this one. The official, legal term had absolutely no relevence to what people will call it.

 

To my mine everyone gets far, far too hung up on words over rights. For goodness sake, aren't the rights more important? If you get the rights, the word may follow. While trying to get the word.... is only going to create an increasingly bitter battle. (And, for the record, I'd rather see the 'legal' bit called a Civil Union for everyone. Because, as pointed out, the legal words don't matter to public perception).

[Fuzzbucket]

Marriage isn't associated with religion.

No indeed. BUT - in the eyes of all those who scream about how gay marriage is wrong - that is what they use to argue with. Make it TOTALLY non religious as a term, in that you are NOT married unless you did the civil thing, however many magic people in funny clothes wave special things at you (sorry, philpot and any other believers here; don't be offended - that was something my father, an Anglican minister, used to say when he married divorced people IN CHURCH - which you weren't supposed to do at the time !) and SOME of that at least has to go away.

 

"Of course we are married; the mayor said so..."

 

Tikini - ever since this came up I have wanted to be in a civil union, as I feel so strongly that marriage is a civil thing and I am not a believer and people assume I must have been married in church - partly because of my father - and I wasn't, as for me, god had nothing to do with it. I am cross that I CAN'T call mine a civil union !

 

Equal rights for ALL. Straight people should be allowed to have civil unions if gay people can

[Kestra15]

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.

America, you shock me with your progress. Congratulations.

[Switch]

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.

Yee! This is great. <3 Sooo glad progress is being made.

[Amazing_Grace]

May I join the discussion? I know I'm 30 pages late.

 

My personal views on gay marriage differ from my legal views on gay marriage. I personally would NEVER recognize a religious gay marriage, whereas legally I see absolutely no problem with it. America is a country that was founded as a nation with freedom of religion, and even though the founding fathers were absolutely text-book Christians, they didn't found America as a Christian nation. This is why legally I see no problem with it.

[brairtrainer]

May I join the discussion? I know I'm 30 pages late.

 

My personal views on gay marriage differ from my legal views on gay marriage. I personally would NEVER recognize a religious gay marriage, whereas legally I see absolutely no problem with it. America is a country that was founded as a nation with freedom of religion, and even though the founding fathers were absolutely text-book Christians, they didn't found America as a Christian nation. This is why legally I see no problem with it.

There needs to be more people like you. I have a friend who is of some of the same thoughts, and my boyfriend has similar (though he's closer to red's line of thinking, but he says the states and feds should call it civil unions and that the churches may call it marriage but marriage is not the word the government uses.

[CNR4806]

May I join the discussion? I know I'm 30 pages late.

 

My personal views on gay marriage differ from my legal views on gay marriage. I personally would NEVER recognize a religious gay marriage, whereas legally I see absolutely no problem with it. America is a country that was founded as a nation with freedom of religion, and even though the founding fathers were absolutely text-book Christians, they didn't found America as a Christian nation. This is why legally I see no problem with it.

I think you just said everything I want to.

 

These conservative Christian groups are infringing other people's freedom of religion by using their religion as an excuse to stand against LGBT rights.

[prairiecrow]

I personally would NEVER recognize a religious gay marriage,

Okay, so how about religions like Wicca, where gay marriage is recognized as a spiritually valid union? Or certain denominations of Christianity, for that matter? Are you saying that no other religion's perceptions are valid, only those of your own particular Christian denomination?

[slaerakuyume]

Just to chime in:

 

 

Under the secular law, all marriages regardless of sexuality or gender identity, should be recognized. Not as a "civil union," either. As a marriage. Marriage allots so many benefits that "civil union" does not. There really is no argument about this. No secular or rational argument can be made that provides proof enough to discriminate against these people -- or, at least, I've yet to hear one.

 

 

 

Under religious code/law/whatever, no one should be forced to recognize a marriage, simply because of how America works -- freedom of religion and all of that. Unfortunately, this leads to discrimination (i.e. a church could decide not to marry you because you're of middle eastern descent, or because of your skin color, or political views). And while I don't agree with any group discriminating against others for any reason (religious or otherwise), this is unfortunately what separation of church and state + freedom of religion means, to one degree or another.

 

Luckily, more and more religious sects are becoming welcoming to the LGBT community, so there are usually pastors/priests/whatevers in a certain denomination/religion that will marry two people under said religious laws, even if the denomination/religion as a whole does not condone it.

[TikindiDragon]

Under the secular law, all marriages regardless of sexuality or gender identity, should be recognized. Not as a "civil union," either. As a marriage. Marriage allots so many benefits that "civil union" does not. There really is no argument about this. No secular or rational argument can be made that provides proof enough to discriminate against these people -- or, at least, I've yet to hear one.

*sigh* No, wrong. Civil Unions in the U.S. currently do not confer all the benefits marriage does. That doesn't mean they can't, nor does it mean they don't in other places. My argument is, and remains, that *all* 'unions', regardless of the gender of the participants, conferring any kind of benefit should be Civil Unions administered by the State.

[ShinyTomato]

and even though the founding fathers were absolutely text-book Christians

 

I would disagree with this, but that's not what this debate is about.

 

I personally would NEVER recognize a religious gay marriage, whereas legally I see absolutely no problem with it.

 

I have to back up prariecrow here --I had a wedding with all the proper ceremonies and blessings. Do you mean that you would never recognised me as married?

 

Or do you like some religions/denominations, only view a marriage as valid if done under the auspices of your religion/denomination? (Like how Presbyterians don't recognise Lutheran marriages.)

[CrossingStar]

Okay, so how about religions like Wicca, where gay marriage is recognized as a spiritually valid union? Or certain denominations of Christianity, for that matter? Are you saying that no other religion's perceptions are valid, only those of your own particular Christian denomination?

Wiccans are bound by the Wiccan Rede. It preaches that absolutely no judgment is to be put upon you for your sexual orientation. Should I quote some of the most popular version here, for sake of reference?

 

I myself have read a lot about Wicca and am Pagan. So I believe that it doesn't matter who you love.

[Wookieinmashoo]

America is a country that was founded as a nation with freedom of religion, and even though the founding fathers were absolutely text-book Christians, they didn't found America as a Christian nation.

I can't remember where, but one of those founding fathers would cross out the miracles stated in his version of the bible, which isn't something a "textbook Christian" would do. Thomas Jefferson was even known for some very anti-Christian statements. I don't doubt that many of them were some form of Christian, but I do doubt them being the very "good" ones that people preach about.

[Vhale]

That was Jefferson. There's actually a dentist turned activist down here in Texas that is trying to get history books revised, in part to remove Jefferson because he was "Not a good Christian"

 

I am getting some amusement out of all the people that are posting to Twitter etc how they want to move to Australia and Canada. Both of which have gun control, health care, Canada has gay marriage, Australia's PM is an atheist "living in sin" with a man. There are getting to be fewer and fewer places outside the US that are so, people here are slow to realize it. But I think that also shows, that it's a moot point to get hung up on the word. We, the US, do not have a trademark right on the english language.

[MysticTiger]

I am getting some amusement out of all the people that are posting to Twitter etc how they want to move to Australia and Canada. Both of which have gun control, health care, Canada has gay marriage, Australia's PM is an atheist "living in sin" with a man. There are getting to be fewer and fewer places outside the US that are so, people here are slow to realize it. But I think that also shows, that it's a moot point to get hung up on the word. We, the US, do not have a trademark right on the english language.

There are people legitimately saying they want to move out of the country because Equal Marriage rights? Seriously? I can understand when people talk about moving out of the country due to a new president since new laws can potentially ruin a person's life but equal marriage?

 

These people all realize marriage is between two people, not three right? They are in no way affected by a random gay couple getting married, just as they aren't affected by a random hetero couple getting married. I'm so sick of this "the bible says so". Mostly because when they say that, they're being hypocritical. The bible says a lot of stuff, but they don't follow any of it. Especially the part where, you know, God has the last word on who's sinning or not. It makes me sick that people are taking their religion and using it as the reasoning behind hating and hurting other people.

 

Also, The only reason i'd move to Canada is because of health care (and stricter gun laws, to be honest).

[maxjaller]

As a Gay man I wish to one day marry my boyfriend ;\

[CrossingStar]

These people all realize marriage is between two people, not three right? They are in no way affected by a random gay couple getting married, just as they aren't affected by a random hetero couple getting married. I'm so sick of this "the bible says so". Mostly because when they say that, they're being hypocritical. The bible says a lot of stuff, but they don't follow any of it. Especially the part where, you know, God has the last word on who's sinning or not. It makes me sick that people are taking their religion and using it as the reasoning behind hating and hurting other people.

Christianity...the things I hear about religious people attacking gay rights are truly sickening. Now I know that it wouldn't be fair to say, 'All Christians are mean and stupid and they should be censored.' That would be horrible too. Goddess knows, everyone deserves the right to have their own opinion.

 

That brings me to my other point; people shouldn't be able to attack another group out of spite they way they do. All these arguments and accusations get us nowhere. When will it end? Will gays ever get full rights? Who will end it? These are just some of the questions I have.

[cchimp123]

Gay marriage should be allowed! Who should have the right to tell two people that they shouldn't love each other no matter what the gender of those two people are!