The Religious "View"

[spencer]

I never understood when in regards to SSM it's completely okay to impose your beliefs over another. I am FORCED to not marry someone because someone else doesn't like it even though the marriage will have ABSOLUTEY NO effect on their life whatsoever.

Yeeeet my life has to be effected because they don't like it.

This is okay? No one sees a problem with this? Really? Why is this? The only answer I can come up with is because people are @#$%ing idiots. Yup, that's my honest opinion and you really can't just call someone a @#$ing idiot especially when you're trying to make a point so I tend to stay silent. :3

[East]

As an Oregonian East, I gotta tell you Portland would probably be the only thing you would want out of our fair state. The rest of it seems to be slowly transforming into redneck central.

*sigh* it used to be such a wonderful state too

LOL...we got them in California too...so...we can have a year exchange program where the rednecks can move to the red states and the refugees from the red states can move here!:biggrin: Everyone wins!

[Lilitu]

Well I think the problem is that the proponents see the 'religious people's' view like this "Marriage is a Christian/religious sacrosanct union that shouldn't be broken" but they, I think see it more as "marriage is a social norm and a tradition that we don't think should change"

That's why we never understand each other's arguments. We think they're forcing their beliefs onto us and they think we're trying to break up tradition so that gays can marry. And all the while, we're caught up in lots of rhetoric that stops up from finding an actual answer.

Of course, there does tend to be alot of homophobia lying hidden underneath so that does weaken their argument a bit.

[Blue]

I agree, I've brought this up with several of my rather conservative, straight friends and, the consensus is that yes a gay couple who has built a life together via a long term relationship should have all the rights of married couples but, they shouldn't be allowed to get married in any church because that's against the Bible and, they should not be called husband and husband or wife and wife, that's wrong too. But if they got a joining permit and went to the justice of the peace, and were then simply called a joined couple, that would be fine.

So If we pick new terminology that isn't the same terms conservative fundamentalist use, then we might have a better shot at getting equality on this front. Who cares what it's called, those are just words, what matters is the meaning and the rights behind the words. And if it can't be in a church, that's fine, outdoors, at home, in a feed store, I don't care as long as it gets the same rights as hetero couples.

[East]

That is the conservative Republican view. Equal...but not really.

They tried that once with drinking fountains and bathrooms around "those" parts. Those people can have both as long as they are not the same as ours. Everyone's happy...eh? They got water and a place to pee too so what is the problem?

[dfiant]

Okay, I am so sick of hearing that America should be a theocracy and that just, because a lot of Americans are religious, that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and that marriage is only between a man and a woman. How in the hell is it their right to invade our basic human rights, because their "religion" said so. Not everyone is religious and America is NOT a religious nation. Some people came here for religious freedom. How is this fair?

Firstly, I would say the more appropriate title for this thread would be A religious view.

I think it is a common misconception that America is predominantly religious (By religious I can only assume that people are talking about being Catholic or Christian), we have the same problem in Australia. In fact a majority of people identify as athiest, agnost or 'other' so the majority are not catholic or christian, they are just the business's that have most of the money which means they have the louder voice and most influence.

Having said that, I am a firm believer that no religion has a place in politics, neither should mix and decisions should not be made for everyone based on a religious view. Politician represent the people that vote for them (At least that is the way it is supposed to work), and in representing us voter they must put their personal views behind them and listen to the voices of the people that vote for them. I know it is never going to happen that way, but that is the way it should work.

Religion + Politics = War

You don't see the USA at war with predominantly christian countries because they don't believe in their fiscal policy now, do we?

[ChadCoxRox]

The last wedding I attended they used the term betrothed and it was beautiful! The couple still uses "husband" to refer to each other and I think that is perfect!

[Pix]

This principal not only got rid of a gay guy but also women (many of them single mothers) trying to find a profession just to get rid of that one gay guy, and then also cost the school money (who no doubt, or at least I sincerely hope so, had to refund the money of everyone who paid to attend as well):

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/09...ts-joining

In short he's willing to burn money rather than tolerate a paying gay man's presence. And screw over a lot of heterosexuals (and their children) in the process, too. I really hope he doesn't get away with this, but being East Texas he might (though IIRC Beaumont is close to Houston which is a lot more cosmopolitan). I guess it's up to the school board or whatever to decide which is stronger, their love of money or hatred of homosexuals (and as CFA has proven, Christian hate can and does trump raw capitalism, especially in the South). :frown:

Is there any anti-bigotry sites out there that detail people like this, like say something called Asshole of the Week, that I can nominate him for?

[biwarlock]

kind of off topic but not too much. first off i agree with everyone that SSM shouldbe allowed not just in a few states but in the whole country because the government has no right to influence who we marry. they are violating the very document that this country runs on, The Constitution. I think, and correct me if im wrong, in there it says there shall be a seperation between, state and religion. Religion should have no influence over marriage because of the fact that marriage is a state handled operation. true most marriages take place in churches and must have a religious leader present, but who do you put your marriage papers into a Priest or a Judge? And part of the wedding vow that the priest says is "by the power invested in me by the STATE of (insert state here) I now pronounce you (insert phrase here).

[Person66]

I (mainly Christianity which I LOATHE, HATE and ABHOR with a deep passion) but it seems to me all religion has ever done is cause strife, prejudice and killing...amongst other lovely things along that line.

But religion causes nothing but trouble as far as I'm concerned.

Mainly Christianity! No, no, no. I agree that religion and religious forces are fucking up the world but I believe you only say Christianity because that's mainly what you see around you in the U.S.A.
Remember how all the fundamentalists talk of Judeo-Christianity. The Abrahamic religions are the worst offenders, the big three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
This all started with Judaism, remember the Book of Leviticus, which forbids homosexuality (and tells you that if someone asks for your daughter as a slave, the proper thing is to offer her up) is all in the Old Testament, a Jewish text. The assault on gays and women started with Judaism (remember it was Eve who tricked Adam into eating the Apple). This was passed down to Christianity because Jesus was a Jew.
These Jewish ideas didn't spread until Christianity, because back then Judaism was a small sect.
Remember Ancient Egyptian women had more rights than Victorian women.
About 500 years later Islam came along and completed the trifecta of oppression.
Islam is the worst, with the strongest oppression of gays and women.
I don't even need to provide examples.
America is worse off than Western and Northern Europe, because America is far more religious (read: Christian ) than say England. (not by that much)

I must add that "the founding fathers of the U.S. were very religious men who feared Democracy and feared Monarchy. They created a Republic (not a Democracy)) where the people had little say and business could do business." That's a direct quote from the late Gore Vidal (I think)
And "seperation between church and state" was meant to prevent the state from meddling in religious matters. Not to prevent politics from mixing with religion, which as Dfiant points out has disastrous consequences.