What if the religious right really did hate Gays and Lesbians?

[Ðanisty]

Not quite... but France is leading the way perhaps...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACS_%28civil_union%29

The problem I see with this is that it doesn't give all the same rights as marriage...much like the civil unions here.

I'm interested in supporting the tossing out of marriage altogether as a state-sponsored institution and replacing it with civil unions so as to extend the rights of marriage not only to "lovers" but also all other people who have lifetime commitments to eachother. It's only messy when more than two people are involved.

Insurance companies are never going to go for that. It would cost them too much. At the very least, everybody's rates would skyrocket. I don't know about you, but most people in this country can't afford healthcare and insurance as it is.

The two definitions of marriage would be abolished. The word "marriage", would be a spiritual term void of any legal rights. A Civil Union would be given to all by the state and they would be in charge of all things legal. I would not need the states permission to marry you, but you would not walk away from the ceremony with any legal right either.

What I don't understand is, if you don't care that everyone is going to call themselvse married anyway, then why go through all of this? Instead, you could simply give marriage to everyone and take away a priest's right to sign the legal marriage document. People would have to go to the courthouse to get those things signed and then to church for the ceremony just like you suggest.

The word "marriage" is all you have to get away from to relieve you from religious persecution. We want to own that word. We want the word marriage to not have any legal rights given to it and only represent a spiritual bond before God.

But it's not your word to own. You don't get to "own" any words. Can't you see that this is what's ******* people off?

Exactly, I want the word to mean one thing and one thing only.

I want you to think about this, the gay and lesbian community have been acquiring words and changing their meaning for quite some time now. I have no problem with that, why can't Christians do this as well?

Yeah, well the difference is that homosexuals never said the word *** can't mean cigarette, the word gay can't mean happy, and the word queer can't mean strange. They aren't taking words away from you the way you want to take the word marriage away.

 

[McBell]

I see no difference between trying to own a word and trying to redefine a word. perhaps you need to take your own advice.

Marriage (mar'ij) n. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; specifically, a compact entered into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife; wedlock.

Interesting how you chose the most recent definition of the word.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Interesting how you chose the most recent definition of the word.

Excellent point.

 

[jamaesi]

So basicly this boils down to a group of people wanting to have exclusive rights to a word and the concept it describes even though this word was not invented by them and the concept was around long long long loooong before this group was even around? And not only this, this group wants to deny human rights to another group of people just because of this word they did not invent or a practice they merely adopted?

I think there's a word I have exclusive rights to using (and I have exclusive rights to it because... well, I say so!). It's called "petty."

 

[Reverend Rick]

The problem I see with this is that it doesn't give all the same rights as marriage...much like the civil unions here.

What are the differences?

Insurance companies are never going to go for that. It would cost them too much. At the very least, everybody's rates would skyrocket. I don't know about you, but most people in this country can't afford healthcare and insurance as it is.

That is the truth!

What I don't understand is, if you don't care that everyone is going to call themselves married anyway, then why go through all of this? Instead, you could simply give marriage to everyone and take away a priest's right to sign the legal marriage document. People would have to go to the courthouse to get those things signed and then to church for the ceremony just like you suggest.

It was a crazy idea, everyone will hate it.

But it's not your word to own. You don't get to "own" any words. Can't you see that this is what's ******* people off?

I haven't really noticed [/sarcasm]

Yeah, well the difference is that homosexuals never said the word *** can't mean cigarette, the word gay can't mean happy, and the word queer can't mean strange. They aren't taking words away from you the way you want to take the word marriage away.

OK, lets give it a try.

Yes, I'm a queer person, When I suck on a *** it makes me gay. Do you believe this is good for my health? Smoking that is?

 

[Reverend Rick]

So basicly this boils down to a group of people wanting to have exclusive rights to a word and the concept it describes even though this word was not invented by them and the concept was around long long long loooong before this group was even around? And not only this, this group wants to deny human rights to another group of people just because of this word they did not invent or a practice they merely adopted?

I think there's a word I have exclusive rights to using (and I have exclusive rights to it because... well, I say so!). It's called "petty."

So why not grant this petty request then?

 

[Scuba Pete]

The real preposterous part of this thread is the erroneous supposition that the religious right does NOT hate gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, their actions are shouting so loud that I can't hear what they are saying.

 

[Ðanisty]

Yes, I'm a queer person, When I suck on a *** it makes me gay. Do you believe this is good for my health? Smoking that is?

You know this made me think of something else. Exactly who determined the additional meaning of these words? Was it homosexuals? I'm pretty sure that until recently (even now for many), ****** was not a word that a homosexual wanted to be called. Did homosexuals take these words and change the meaning of them or was it others who changed the meaning to refer to homosexuals? I honestly don't know the answer. I'm just asking a question.

Either way, it's not the same thing. Homosexuals are not saying, "we should have exclusive rights on the word ***."

If you can accept that the meaning of the words above has evolved and are commonly taken to be accepted definitions, why do you have so many problems with the idea that the word marriage has evolved? It's not a strictly religious word. Even if it was a religious word, it hasn't been a strictly religious concept for at least a couple of millenia.

(I would have guessed that sentence to be a play on words even if we weren't having this conversation).

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yes, and if I offended anyone, I apologise. I know the word flaming is used by my gay friends alot. They don't like the other two, Gay is fine though.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If I may, I want to tell a story about something that happened this weekend. It is kinda on topic.

I performed a wedding this weekend and the Uncle of the bride is gay. I have known him for several years and he is a blast to be around. At the reception, where the ceremony was held as well, after the bride and groom danced, everyone was dancing. Her Uncle came alone, as did I and we were the only two not dancing. Well, you guessed it, the both of us got off the side line and danced together. I have the pictures to prove it lol.

 

[jamaesi]

So why not grant this petty request then?

Because if I had a girlfriend, a wife, I wouldn't have the right to see her in the hospital because we can't get married. I can't take care of her children should anything happen to her because we can't get married. I can't go to her funeral if her family objects because we can't get married. I could have my house we lived in taken away because we can't get married. If she was arrested, I could be forced to testify against her because we can't get married. If she was in jail I would not be able to see her because we can't get married. I can't get insurance through her place of work because because we can't get married. We can't live in housing zones that are "family only" because we can't get married. We can't recieve insurance breaks for families because because we can't get married. I can't sue for wrongful death of my spouse because we can't get married. We can't foster or adopt children because we can't get married. I can't take off work to care for her if she was sick because we can't get married. We can't file our taxes jointly because because we can't get married.

There's about a 1,000 other rights we can't have because we can't get married.


If you think marriage and civil unions are the same thing then I really do not know what to say.

 

[zenzero]

Friend,
One can go on debating anything but the result is never final as after sometime the rules will change or some other change will take place and change the whole issue.
Differences - arises from the MIND and all religions have been trying to inform people that the MIND itself is the SATAN. It makes one take sides and so differences will always exits till we listen to our mind.
god realistaion/samadhi/salvation/nirvana are all happenings when the mind is STILL and life is clearly visible in its true image.
Stilling is mind is the most difficult task and so every religion has has trying to eveolve differnt methods like prayers, rosary or mala, excercises like yoga/tai-chi, meditations like zazen etc.
Each individual actually can devise his/her own method that suits him/her for stilling the mind and reach the goal of samadhi/salvation/god realisation etc.
Love & rgds

 

[Reverend Rick]

But what if everyone got a Civil Union? Would that not help you? I have asked three or four times now what was left out in a Civil Union? Why could it not be included if it was missing?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Friend,
One can go on debating anything but the result is never final as after sometime the rules will change or some other change will take place and change the whole issue.
Differences - arises from the MIND and all religions have been trying to inform people that the MIND itself is the SATAN. It makes one take sides and so differences will always exits till we listen to our mind.
god realistaion/samadhi/salvation/nirvana are all happenings when the mind is STILL and life is clearly visible in its true image.
Stilling is mind is the most difficult task and so every religion has has trying to eveolve differnt methods like prayers, rosary or mala, excercises like yoga/tai-chi, meditations like zazen etc.
Each individual actually can devise his/her own method that suits him/her for stilling the mind and reach the goal of samadhi/salvation/god realisation etc.
Love & rgds

Frubals!

 

[jamaesi]

But what if everyone got a Civil Union? Would that not help you? I have asked three or four times now what was left out in a Civil Union? Why could it not be included if it was missing?

Straight couples already DO get a legal marriage from the state. All we want is one petty little thing, to get that same damn piece of paper from the state that grants us thousands of rights civil unions don't grant us.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I tried to leave this thread last night. I did not answer every ones post, so I have stuck around for another day trying to answer everyone. If there are no objections, I believe we have all had a good run. I see this issue from a different perspective for sure.
Good luck everyone and God Bless.

 

[FatMan]

The real preposterous part of this thread is the erroneous supposition that the religious right does NOT hate gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, their actions are shouting so loud that I can't hear what they are saying.

Apparently the Religious Right just hates gays and lesbians using the word marriage. A strange thing to protest and spew venom about if one were to believe those supporting the Religious Right here.

Let's face it - the Religious Right are a bunch of hypocritical hatemongers. They think they know what the true road to salvation is so they force their beliefs on all who come into their path. Disagree with them and at the very least the whole lot will brand you as someone going to hell.

I tackle the Religious Right in a couple of different areas, and no matter how logical or organized my arguments are, often times the only response I will get to my issues with them is that I am a Godless soul or someone in need of prayers. It is because they can't argue the points factually that they have to turn to a religious angle.

Assuming ownership of the word marriage is so laughable as a premise of debate, yet some people actually hold onto that concept as a viable one. With illogical reasoning like that, you can't hope to change minds.

 

[Mike182]

The word "marriage" is all you have to get away from to relieve you from religious persecution. We want to own that word. We want the word marriage to not have any legal rights given to it and only represent a spiritual bond before God.

Let the state give everyone Civil Unions and that is the basis of legal rights between any couple.

Any time the word marriage is spoken, it would be a religious term void of any legal rights.

i totally agree on this, good luck convincing the rest of the religious right.

So perhaps trying to take one big leap to equality and not succeed is not the best course of action.

yes, exactly. i don't know how long it would take to push the legislation through, but social perceptions of LGBT people have to be changed as well, and that will take time and lots of small steps.

I don't think that. We now have a battered women's shelter. Perhaps we need to have something like this available to help homeless or battered people in the gay and lesbian community.

yes, the government should set those up as well, but why don't you agree with here?

i'm saying that small town communities and large town communities both seem to have a negative affect on LGBT youth, is it not the job of the church to reach out to those in need? i thought those who were persecuted were equally blessed... but like i said, i have a huge quarrel with the government over these two specific issues, i just think the various christian churches (and other religious institutions) could do with reaching out to LGBT youth and supporting them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The real preposterous part of this thread is the erroneous supposition that the religious right does NOT hate gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, their actions are shouting so loud that I can't hear what they are saying.

Ha! I've been thinking that if some people in the "religious right" thought that they hated homosexuals, we would not notice a measureable difference between what they are saying about homosexuality and how they are treating homosexuals.

Perhaps a semantic difference:

"We are treating you this way in the name of Christ" = no marriage, out of grace, yada yada

Becomes...

"We are treating you this way because we hate you." = no marriage, out of grace, yada yada

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Straight couples already DO get a legal marriage from the state. All we want is one petty little thing, to get that same damn piece of paper from the state that grants us thousands of rights civil unions don't grant us.

And you have every right to want it. However, it would be nice if everyone got civil unions and marriage was left to the church.