Thank you
Your email has been added to our waiting list and we will send an invite to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.
In the meantime, if you happen to run a blog, our newly launched Blog Enhancement Suite can utilize the immense power of community to help you get more audience, engagement, content, and revenue with your own embeddable community! It will breathe new life into your blog and can automate many of the tedious tasks that come with the territory, so you can focus more on what matters most... writing.
Help spread the word about Snapzu:
Let others know about Snapzu by tweeting about us. We appreciate every mention!
Tweet it!
http://www.bbc.com
Join the Discussion
The largest group of opposition is to the actual term "marriage". This is a religious institution that is held sacred. Why adopt it (marriage), when there are so many alternative options?
In your view, is citizenship a religious institution? Parentage? Next-of-kin, emergency contact, power-of-attorney? Must those all be approved at the upper echelons of your particular flavor of your particular religion? Must your church’s leadership be consulted to know whether each constitutional amendment holds, or only certain of them?
I believe you're welcome to your notion of a marriage as a religious institution. At the same time, in a pluralistic civil society, marriage beyond your private religious interpretation is part of people’s everyday lives. Interracial marriage came and went, and somehow today we hear less and less about what a given sect of whatever faith has to say about that.
Help me out here. How does people you never met getting married and growing old together infringe on your religious liberty? And when one of them is, as perhaps most us will be one day, dying in a hospital bed when only immediate family are permitted to see them, how does a spouse getting to go into the room to say goodbye diminish your rights?
[This comment was removed]
No "notion"! Marriage is/was a religious concept/ institution, of that there is no doubt/argument.........."Help me out here. How does people you never met getting married and growing old together infringe on your religious liberty?" Speaking to your own attributions is a habit with you. I spoke nothing of, nor to "religious liberty", as with the rest of your verbage/rant that has nothing to do with my proffer.
So no, you can't conceive of marriage as a social institution without the express permission of your particular religious tradition. There's your problem. Unless I've profoundly misunderstood you, in which case do let me know.
Again, more attributions, "there's your problem", and yes you have.
I swear, it's as if before you make a comment you have to grease up and apply camouflage makeup. Here's your initial comment:
If you'd tried to use a more passive voice, you might've hurt yourself. But that's your statement. You can deny having said it, but there it is. It has meaning, which you can claim wasn't what you meant, but it's right there for all to see.
Here's your question:
Maybe I'm taking crazy pills. You tell me. You're saying marriage equality is mostly opposed because marriage is a sacred institution, so gay folks should've settled for not-marriage. Is it me going off the rails to deduce from this fairly clear statement that marriage equality becoming the law of the land in some way fails to respect what you've described asd a sacred institution? Am I wrong in thinking that there is a conflict being described here?
Now, which part are you calling “attributions?”
Mind you, I'm not going to put in more than a couple weeks work here, holding you to what you've said and what it actually meant.
I asked a simple, straight-forward question, it's you who attributes to that some sort of belief(s).
Do you feel like you can speak on behalf of someone that might've asked that question, or is it like you're a medium at a seance who's really just a channel through which disembodied spirits deliver Christian Dominionist messages?
Please stop these/your processes of attributions, It goes nowhere with me, it's pure inanity!
You often make statements that you phrase as questions, then you hide behind the question mark as if we can't see you. If you have something to say, say it, and own it. If you have something to say on behalf of others but not yourself, say that. The question mark is only so big.
There you go again! Trying to frame an argument in your own light, get over it. Your interpretations/attributions are sideways to every comment you attempt to dissect. Try just reading what's offered, and not construct some interpolation to which you can take to who knows where. All my comments are precise, concise and or terse, there are no hidden agenda....... Stop the bullshit!....This mostly the same response you'll get every/any time you construct your own sense/version of , whatever. ...........and oh, your psychoanalysis skills still really suck;-)
I've read what was offered. Recapped it fairly, too. The question to you was if you thought there was a conflict between the ‘sacred institution’ you described and people being married. This was, however, a fallback question as you'd sidestepped every other question leading up to that point. Now this one, too. Can't nail jelly to a tree, they say.
Let's forget it. I'm more interested in how this all went wrong. The only progress we've made so far is establishing that your initial comment is some kind of perfect 4-dimensional tesseract that can't be understood in any subset of dimensions that anyone else can perceive. Nobody besides yourself, and whichever divinity speaks through you, can draw any inferences from it or reason about its implications because it's just that sanctimonious.
Okay, let's start there. Can you grapple with the ideas in your comment?
Like, is marriage a sacred institution to you? I have to ask because you put it in such a passive voice, and deny even the simplest implications of the statement, that I have to wonder if you were simply the typist for observations that came from a sunbeam out of glory and heavens above.
When you ask why gay people would adopt the practice of marriage instead of some nebulous alternative option, assuming for a moment that the question isn't more truthfully scripture for which you are merely the vessel of its delivery, are you concerned people are defiling marriage itself, or just tempting judgement by an Old Testament Jehova?
Looking at this discussion from an outside perspective, all @MAGISTERLUDI said was [marriage is a] "religious institution that is held sacred". Nowhere did he state anything else, only that he believes marriage to be a religious sacrament, and that the government could have used alternative options.
I don't see this discussion going anywhere from either of you, as @MAGISTERLUDI is simply claiming he has directly stated his feelings (which he definitely has), and @AdelleChattre, you keep bringing more ideas into the discussion than he has spoken about.
@MAGISTERLUDI has not "hidden behind question marks", he is simply not going along with the extra arguments you are making.
Hey. Nice to meet you, and thanks for the caution. I would agree the discussion was going nowhere, had there been one. This series of one-sided comments and evasions can't pass for that. I'd like to apologize if you didn't like my tone, and for you to step in this way, I assume you didn't. The magister may've stated his belief, and I assume he has, but if you look closely you'll find that's not the way it's put. Anyone could state their feelings, no skin off my nose. Look again, though, and you'll find something more insidious than that.
Yes, that commenter hides behind question marks, the way a chess player may open with a pawn. In this game. accusations move side to side. retrenchments move diagonally; diversions and evasions move wherever he'd like. As often, I think, the magister hides behind his “questions” to avoid seeing any immediate consequences of his position. You've said that I'm bringing ideas into the discussion. Yeah, the direct implications of his statements.
In case you got the wrong impression, this is not a first encounter. All in good fun, though. He doesn't throw firecrackers like that into the room without expecting a result.
Thank you Spar, ......now ,@AdelleChattre-"Your interpretations/attributions are sideways to every comment you attempt to dissect. Try just reading what's offered, and not construct some interpolation to which you can take to who knows where. All my comments are precise, concise and or terse, there are no hidden agenda....... Stop the bullshit!..."
Thanks for the response and understanding.
Yeah, that's definitely a fair point (and one I do not disagree with). If you are commenting on a discussion forum, you need to be ready to discuss your views. The fact that this discussion is, as you said, "not a first encounter" removes the concern I had initially.
Spar, I'm not too familiar with magister, but Adelle has been here for a while now. she rarely comments, but civil rights, specifically gay rights appears to be something of her 'pet issue' and when there is an article regarding gay rights, you can count on her commenting on it. Everyone has pet issues that they are more passionate about.
Also, I don't really know the history between them on this issue. That said, I don't like the tone from either of them in this discussion/argument. If I were their parent, I would physically separate them to insure that this doesn't continue.
So, separate-but-equal hasn't really worked out in America each time we've tried it. And, like it or not, marriage is a religious institution that's worked its way into the secular world - tax codes, family insurance coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance laws, etc, all have language specifically about marriage. It's very easy to imagine a situation in which civil unions and marriages have different rules applied, from both the government and private companies... and in fact that's the case according to GLAD.
One of the big differences is that civil unions often aren't respected state-to-state, so a couple's New Hampshire civil union wouldn't be recognized if they moved to Arkansas, and the couple would lose the benefits (notably the tax and insurance benefits) of that civil union.
I have to challenge this. Official recognition of family bonding has been around since the beginning of recorded human history. Making note of who is married to whom and producing which children has been a legal concern the whole time. Marriage was co-opted by religion as it claimed jurisdiction over sexuality and reproduction but that's still no excuse to cede it to religious interests. Marriage is a secular institution that religion has as much right to participate in but no right to make any demands over.
As has been often observed, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage doesn't have to get one.
I'm not opposed, but I take those two as separate things, the Roman Catholic marriage and a secular marriage, or even one performed in a church that doesn't recognize marriage as a sacrement are not really the same thing. So I think that's where I personally sit, I'll call it a marriage, but it's a secular marriage that's different from a religious one. For other people who cannot or will not separate them, it's not the same way, they see you saying something about the institution that Christ started, you see a tax code and visitation. It's not so much about denying you anything, it's about what the sacrement is to them, and if marriages everywhere are sacremental, then it's not possible to have an extrabiblical marriage because Jesus defines marriage.
Like I said, I draw a line around those in my denomination, and anything that they do would affect the definition of marriage, but because we aren't living under canon law, there's a bit of separation there. those marriages are different, as they're secular and governed by secular law (and the laws of your church/temple/mosque/asram/amileavinganythingout) I don't get a vote on what a Muslim marriage is, or a buddhist one, or a hindu one, or a jedi one. That's what a secular government does. We don't live under ISIL or in Vatican City, we aren't under religious law, and thus what matters is lack of harm, consent, and legal consistency. Once you show all of that, it's a free choice in a free country.
Nonsense, The Supreme Court could/would have included any other nomenclature.
But how does changing a single word change what's going on here? I think you mean that you'd be fine with gay marriage if they replaced marriage with another term, correct? But I don't see where using a different term changes anything else. If the new institution (let's call it a hulbaba) gave every right that the state grants to marriage, a marriage and a hulbaba are the same thing. We're arguing semantics, where two literally identical contracts are given different names even though they're the same thing. If hulbabas and marriages are identical in every way, then really, changing the word is a best a fig leaf to hide the reality that by granting gays hulbabas but denying them marriages, you've given them marriages but created a fictional name to deny that they are in fact married.
If the supreme court used any other nomenclature than marriage, it would have merely continued the debate. There is already the argument that gays shouldn't get married because they can get civil unions, except civil unions are NOT the same thing as a marriage. They are not universally recognized state to state. They also do not bring any of the federal protections granted by a legal marriage. The legal system in this country uses the term "Marriage" to define a union between two people that brings a certain social status, tax benefits and other civil and social benefits with it. If the Supreme Court were to allow gays to get any other term but married, an entire new framework of laws would need to be written, defining say "Federal Civil Unions" if that were to be the term used, and in order to make them equal to federally recognized marriages, each and every one of the benefits granted to a married couple would need to be granted to a couple engaging in a civil union. And even then, our history shows that separate is never truly equal. So, rather than create another legal quagmire, the Supreme Court stated that denying homosexuals the right to federally recognized marriages is discriminating against an entire social class of people, which doesn't fly with our constitution. Constantly calling for the government to use a different term would mean the government would have to change that term for every other married couple in the United States in order to make it fair and equal - which there is a push for in this country. Your argument is a strawman designed to try and convince people to deny rights to an entire class of people.
I think that's actually a huge part of it. Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox consider marriage a sacrement, and most other denominations consider marriage sacred. I could see how they would balk at the idea of something considered a command by God to be desecrated by people claiming it's not what it is to them. It would be like claiming to have Eucharist when you eat corn flakes. It's not cool, because Eucharist is a sacrement, you don't mess with that.
Personally, I figure I have a say over people who practice MY religion, and I can say that's against my denomination's understanding. But outside of that, it's you and your priest, I don't get a vote.
Marriage is a socially recognized union and legal contract that may or may not run parallel to any number of religions. "why adopt it (marriage)" BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA.
Let me post up my thoughts on Gay Marriage... It will probably be controversial, but I want to say I understand where the conservative far right folks are coming from. With that statement, surely, folks are already sharpening up the pitchforks; But hopefully you'll read a bit further and understand my point.
(tens of?)Thousands of years ago, when the world was under-populated, I'm quite sure that when two men fell in love with each other, or two women, it was seen as a bad thing. If you do the math(s) then you'll see and understand why folks might think this. Two women aren't going to produce offspring; neither are two men. At some point in the past, it was deemed a bad thing to allow this behavior as the perception was that it could end humanity.
Take this to a personal level. If you are a Father or Mother and you feel your children are you and your parents legacy, then if they don't have children, then you die.
At some point in time, religions decided to incorporate this into their stance either consciously or not effectively outlawing gay marriage. I've never read this concept anywhere, but the more I think of it the more it has to be how it came to be.
I 100% support the right for folks to marry whomever they want. I'm simply saying I at least understand where the concept and hate probably comes from. I don't think they are right. But I at least understand it.
...and theeeere goes my positive rating.
To expand on that in more recent times, when a new religion was made, it was usually persecuted with several of it's members often being killed. This leads to the religion creating a rule or a norm in which people reproduce more often. Christianity encouraged its followers to be fruitful and reproduce. This means, of course, that gay people are a threat to the survival of the religion. So, they make something up that says they are bad. The religion continues on for 1-3 thousand years and the followers are still following these norms and listening to these rules.
Nah, no reason to down vote you just because you understand where the other side comes from. Your argument makes a lot of sense! I can understand their point of view as well, I just wish they'd look at it from an equality standpoint and understand that their fellow humans deserve the same rights and protections they do. There are plenty of religious people out there who DO think it's fine that marriage equality is the law of the land, especially the group around my age (mid-20s).
To add to the "biological imperative" argument. It's understandable why same sex unions would be frowned upon in the past - when population growth was an advantage that tribes (no pun in ten did) strived for. However, with our population density and the resulting growth of a "world community" (which cannot come soon enough, I might add), same sex unions actually makes sense now.
In other words, the individual's capacity to contribute to population growth is no longer needed. This might actually be the system correcting itself and might also explain why the younger population are not so against same sex marriage as the older ones. They were the guardians of the old paradigm and they are performing their function. Just as the younger populations are performing their function, pushing the agenda that corrects the system.
It's evolution, baby!
The world is now generally considered to be overpopulated - when you take that into account, same sex marriages are actually beneficial, as they cannot add to the population.
Nowadays, same sex couples can still raise a family by means of adoption or foster care - and this provides a safe place for children to grow up that may not have had one before.
I don't sense any doubt from the supporters!
It should not be the governments business as to who gets married and who doesnt. As long as its consenting adults. Hell, even in the bible, plural marriages were common. And from what I understand plural marriages are still common in some parts of the world. If someone is gay and wants to marry.. they should be able to. Its their business, they would pay taxes, ect ect... so eh.. let them. I say hell, if a polygamist had wives, and everyone was happy.. let them all get married if they wanted to. lol