People "protecting marriage": where are you on Monday nights?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So my wife's currently engaged in her weekly habit of watching The Bachelor, but something just occurred to me:

There are plenty of religious groups that have made lots of noise about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" when it suited them. However, consider something like The Bachelor: it effectively turns marriage into the prize on a game show.

I've done Google searches to see if I could find any church or other organization that's spoken out against this show and I couldn't find any. The "protect marriage" crowd is conspicuously silent on treating marriage as a commodity that can be competed for in the name of ratings.

Those of you who belong to the groups who say that they have an interest in "protecting marriage": why has your group stayed silent about this?

 

[Kathryn]

I don't watch that sort of tripe, and make my opinion of it known if it comes up in conversation - in a lighthearted way.

I don't feel like my church is mandated to specifically target "The Bachelor" in order to support the institute of marriage and give guidance and help to the families who attend our church and/or live in our community.

My "religious group" generally addresses bigger issues than some stupid TV show. If we were up in arms about every ri DONK ulous television show out there, we wouldn't have time to feed the hungry, give shelter to the abused or homeless, or be involved in any other real life service in our real life community.

 

[averageJOE]

Penguin, it's because the Bachelor isn't about gay marriage, that's why. A hopeless, straight marriage on a tv game show is much more sacred in god's eyes than a fruitfull and loving, gay marriage.

 

[dust1n]

I don't watch that sort of tripe, and make my opinion of it known if it comes up in conversation - in a lighthearted way.

I don't feel like my church is mandated to specifically target "The Bachelor" in order to support the institute of marriage and give guidance and help to the families who attend our church and/or live in our community.

My "religious group" generally addresses bigger issues than some stupid TV show. If we were up in arms about every ri DONK ulous television show out there, we wouldn't have time to feed the hungry, give shelter to the abused or homeless, or be involved in any other real life service in our real life community.

So then why can't gays get married?

 

[dust1n]

Penguin, it's because the Bachelor isn't about gay marriage, that's why. A hopeless, straight marriage on a tv game show is much more sacred in god's eyes than a fruitfull and loving, gay marriage.

I didn't even read this post before replying, but this is much better.

 

[Kathryn]

Dustin,

Oh, is this going to be yet another thread about gay marriage? Sorry - you'll have to find someone else to play then. I have stated my opinion on that so many times that I am totally, totally bored with the topic.

I'm opposed to any form of marriage being sanctioned by the state. I think all unions should be civil unions and that marriage should be a religious ceremony. And if you want your marriage to take place in a religious community, and you want to live in a religious community, then you can find one that's accepting and supportive, or start your own.

In other words, I believe in the state staying out of mandating religious practices.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

 

[McBell]

Dustin,

Oh, is this going to be yet another thread about gay marriage? Sorry - you'll have to find someone else to play then. I have stated my opinion on that so many times that I am totally, totally bored with the topic.

I'm opposed to any form of marriage being sanctioned by the state. I think all unions should be civil unions and that marriage should be a religious ceremony. And if you want your marriage to take place in a religious community, and you want to live in a religious community, then you can find one that's accepting and supportive, or start your own.

In other words, I believe in the state staying out of mandating religious practices.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

What is really comical is that you know that that will never happen.
Yet you present it as the end all be all.

The fact is that marriage is a legal contract.
That means that it is the state that owns it, not the church.
All the glim, glam, ceremony, sanctity, etc. you add to marraige is just that, stuff you add to the legal contract.

What royally torques my nuts is the way the federal government is avoiding the topic altogether.
They (the federal government) need to get off their collective arse and finally ban all laws against same sex marriage.

I mean, it isn't like there is even one single legitimate legal reason to ban it.

 

[Magic Man]

Dustin,

Oh, is this going to be yet another thread about gay marriage? Sorry - you'll have to find someone else to play then. I have stated my opinion on that so many times that I am totally, totally bored with the topic.

Did you seriously not realize this was about same-sex marriage? Really?

The point of the OP is for all of those who oppose same-sex marriage because they're protecting the sanctity of marriage, why are none of them opposing things like this show which degrade marriage much, much more than a loving same-sex couple getting married.

 

[McBell]

Did you seriously not realize this was about same-sex marriage? Really?

The point of the OP is for all of those who oppose same-sex marriage because they're protecting the sanctity of marriage, why are none of them opposing things like this show which degrade marriage much, much more than a loving same-sex couple getting married.

You did notice how she about dislocated her own shoulder patting herself on the back, right?

 

[Kathryn]

Well, then, Mestemia, maybe you should attend a Tea Party and voice your frustration with the current administration.

Obama certainly isn't supporting any idea of protecting the rights of gays.

You act like a civil union isn't a possibility. It's a legal contract. Don't see why it wouldn't work for everyone.

Call it a marriage if you like. But for many people, marriage is a religious concept - not just a legal one. It's not right for those people to be forced to accept another definition of a religious belief of theirs.

Personally, I believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is dead wrong. But that doesn't mean I accept the definition of marriage to include same sex unions. So what? I wouldn't stop anyone from entering into a civil union - or a legally protected union of more than two people (for instance, Mormon unions). To each his own. But just as you don't want my definition of marriage forced on you, I don't want your definition of marriage forced on me.

People act like the concept of civil unions could never work. Hogwash. The real reason for the opposition to that term is that they want to force people to accept their definition of marriage.

I don't care if every gay couple in the world considers my "marriage" to be nothing more than a civil union.

That's all I think the state should determine - whether or not a legally binding and legally protected civil union exists between people.

Sheeze, if the state can mandate and govern the sale of a piece of commercial property (ever been to one of THOSE closings?), they can certainly handle a civil union.

 

[Kathryn]

You did notice how she about dislocated her own shoulder patting herself on the back, right?

Oh, yeah, bad Kathryn - the enemy. She's that person who believes in equal rights for all people, regardless of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity, or creed.

She's the one who raised her four kids to respect others and to fight to protect and defend the dignity of others, in spite of differences of opinion or belief.

She's the one who would like all legal unions between consenting parties to be protected, as long as they didn't infringe on the rights of others or harm the innocent.

Yep, she's the enemy all right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm opposed to any form of marriage being sanctioned by the state. I think all unions should be civil unions and that marriage should be a religious ceremony. And if you want your marriage to take place in a religious community, and you want to live in a religious community, then you can find one that's accepting and supportive, or start your own.

In other words, I believe in the state staying out of mandating religious practices.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

The mere fact that many people place religious rituals around marriage does not make it a religious practice. You can claim some forms of wedding if you want, but as my father told me before I got married, the wedding is not the marriage, and it's the marriage that's the important thing.

Religous weddings no more make marriage a "religious practice" than religious funerals make death one.

Call it a marriage if you like. But for many people, marriage is a religious concept - not just a legal one. It's not right for those people to be forced to accept another definition of a religious belief of theirs.

And for many others, marriage is a secular concept.

I'm not religious, but I am married. And I'll be damned (no pun intended) if any church is going to tell me that I'm not.

And to get back to the original subject of the thread: I personally consider any attempt to give ownership of "marriage" as an institution to some invisible entity I don't think even exists is, in my eyes, an attempt to cheapen it. It's a concept that all people can point to as important and sacred, not something that can be "owned" by one group or another.

 

[McBell]

Well, then, Mestemia, maybe you should attend a Tea Party and voice your frustration with the current administration.

No thank you.
Those tea parties have thus far proven to be nothing more than a colossal waste of time.

Unless of course you are an alcoholic....

Obama certainly isn't supporting any idea of protecting the rights of gays.

Like I said, the feds need to get off of their COLLECTIVE arses...

You act like a civil union isn't a possibility. It's a legal contract. Don't see why it wouldn't work for everyone.

Please be so kind as to point out when "separate but equal" has EVER worked?

Call it a marriage if you like. But for many people, marriage is a religious concept - not just a legal one. It's not right for those people to be forced to accept another definition of a religious belief of theirs.

It is not my fault that you religious people have gotten all hung up over a word.

Personally, I believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is dead wrong. But that doesn't mean I accept the definition of marriage to include same sex unions. So what? I wouldn't stop anyone from entering into a civil union - or a legally protected union of more than two people (for instance, Mormon unions). To each his own. But just as you don't want my definition of marriage forced on you, I don't want your definition of marriage forced on me.

Like the religious have any ground to stand on when it comes to defining the word marriage.
I mean really. Like they have some sort of monopoly on the word.
They get to redefine it all they like but as soon as someone wants to go back to the original definition they start whining about redefining.

What a big bunch of hypocrites.

People act like the concept of civil unions could never work. Hogwash. The real reason for the opposition to that term is that they want to force people to accept their definition of marriage.

What a big steaming pile of bull ****.
But you go right ahead and tell yourself whatever it takes to let you sleep at night.

See, the thing is, if religions monopoly on the word marriage had any basis in reality, then this would not even be an issue.

I don't care if every gay couple in the world considers my "marriage" to be nothing more than a civil union.

Yet here you are....

That's all I think the state should determine - whether or not a legally binding and legally protected civil union exists between people.

That is all the state does do.
Your problem seems to be that they call that "legally binding and legally protected civil union" a marriage.

Sheeze, if the state can mandate and govern the sale of a piece of commercial property (ever been to one of THOSE closings?), they can certainly handle a civil union.

I agree.
So now all we needs do is figure out why they are avoiding the subject like the plague.

I bet it has to do with the fact that they will have no other choice but to ban all laws against same sex marriage simply because there is not even one single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

 

[Smoke]

Obama certainly isn't supporting any idea of protecting the rights of gays.

That's for damned sure.

You act like a civil union isn't a possibility. It's a legal contract. Don't see why it wouldn't work for everyone.

It won't work because even if you're willing to have your marriage legally dissolved so you can enter into a civil union, the overwhelming majority of people would not be. It would also mean that straight couples would get to experience some of the problems gay couples experience with portability of civil unions. When straight couples start finding that their civil unions aren't recognized when they're traveling abroad, I don't think they're going to like it.

Call it a marriage if you like. But for many people, marriage is a religious concept - not just a legal one. It's not right for those people to be forced to accept another definition of a religious belief of theirs.

That's sheer nonsense. You can have whatever religious belief you like, and if you can't separate your religious beliefs from the legal concept of marriage, you're not as bright as I thought. I have relatives who would say that since you're divorced and remarried, your current marriage is not a real marriage at all. Whether they're right or not isn't the point; why should they be forced to accept another definition of a religious belief of theirs? I'll tell you why: because to the extent that we have religious freedom in this country, nobody's religious beliefs should have any bearing on the legal system, and nobody's religious beliefs should deprive anybody else of equal protection under the law.

People act like the concept of civil unions could never work. Hogwash. The real reason for the opposition to that term is that they want to force people to accept their definition of marriage.

You act like you're only talking about gay couples. You're also asking every straight couple in the U.S. to have their marriage converted to a civil union just to suit your religious scruples. You know damned well that's never going to happen, so all your argument amounts to is empty posturing to justify your opposition to equal rights for gay Americans. You can pretend to believe in equality while at the same time standing squarely opposed to it, and if that's not hypocrisy I'd like to know what the hell is.

 

[McBell]

Oh, yeah, bad Kathryn - the enemy. She's that person who believes in equal rights for all people, regardless of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity, or creed.

She's the one who raised her four kids to respect others and to fight to protect and defend the dignity of others, in spite of differences of opinion or belief.

She's the one who would like all legal unions between consenting parties to be protected, as long as they didn't infringe on the rights of others or harm the innocent.

Yep, she's the enemy all right.

You must be really really limber to pat yourself on the back so much without dislocating your shoulder.

Perhaps you should stop with all the ego masturbation and get back to topic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did you seriously not realize this was about same-sex marriage? Really?

The point of the OP is for all of those who oppose same-sex marriage because they're protecting the sanctity of marriage, why are none of them opposing things like this show which degrade marriage much, much more than a loving same-sex couple getting married.

Actually, I was hoping to avoid having this fall into another shouting match over same-sex marriage. I know that some people are for same-sex marriage and some that are against it. I just wanted to see whether those who are against it in the name of "protecting marriage" apply this principle consistently.

So... those who "protect marriage" by opposing same-sex marriage: what other things do you do to "protect marriage"?

 

[Kathryn]

I don't oppose "gay marriage" or "civil unions" or whatever anyone wants to call it - and I don't care if other people accept my marriage as valid either for that matter. As someone pointed out, many evangelical Christians don't believe my marriage after divorce is valid. So what - I won't be attending their church.

I show my support for individual rights by respecting other people and treating them fairly. As for burning political issues, gay marriage rights just aren't as pressing an issue to me as some others, and I have limited time to spend on political action.

To each his own.

 

[Smoke]

Oh, yeah, bad Kathryn - the enemy. She's that person who believes in equal rights for all people, regardless of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity, or creed.

She's the one who raised her four kids to respect others and to fight to protect and defend the dignity of others, in spite of differences of opinion or belief.

She's the one who would like all legal unions between consenting parties to be protected, as long as they didn't infringe on the rights of others or harm the innocent.

Yep, she's the enemy all right.

Yes, she is.

She favors equality only if the rest of the country will meet conditions she knows damned well will never be met.

She snidely implies without any basis for doing so that my marriage somehow infringes on the rights of others and harms the innocent.

She is squarely opposed to equality, respect, and basic human decency with regard to gay couples, but insists on feigning the opposite.

Kathryn believes gay people should have equal rights when pigs fly, and she expects gay people to respect her for saying so.

 

[Smoke]

I don't oppose "gay marriage" or "civil unions" or whatever anyone wants to call it - and I don't care if other people accept my marriage as valid either for that matter. As someone pointed out, many evangelical Christians don't believe my marriage after divorce is valid. So what - I won't be attending their church.

I won't be attending yours, either.

If we put your principle into action across the board, you won't have a legal marriage at all as long as it's against their religion.

 

[Smoke]

To each his own.

As long as your religious beliefs are the law of the land, you mean.