Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

[Armoured]

I believe it can be weakened, in the eyes of certain believers and their churches, if it's meaning is marred by the inclusion extra-Biblical marriage.

These believers and churches may become apathetic to the institution in the alteration of it's present meaning; the union of a man and a woman by God.

Here I stand and I would not be so quick to sit when the rights of a people are at stake.

So... why is this the problem of the homosexuals who want to get married? Surely people becoming apathetic about their church and beliefs is their own problem, not something that becomes the problem of others?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe it can be weakened, in the eyes of certain believers and their churches, if it's meaning is marred by the inclusion extra-Biblical marriage.

These believers and churches may become apathetic to the institution in the alteration of it's present meaning; the union of a man and a woman by God.

Its present meaning is an alternation, and in many ways a radical departure from, previous meanings. In fact, given the emphasis on equality in the marital relationship, one could argue that marriage today (at least in most Western countries) is already extra-Biblical, in that such concepts would be foreign to the people who wrote the Bible.

 

[Armoured]

Its present meaning is an alternation, and in many ways a radical departure from, previous meanings. In fact, given the emphasis on equality in the marital relationship, one could argue that marriage today (at least in most Western countries) is already extra-Biblical, in that such concepts would be foreign to the people who wrote the Bible.

No! Mythical 1950s America as how it's portrayed in Happy Days is what the Bible intended!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing to those opting for a civil union, or are not of a religious bent, for they (should) enjoy all the benefits that 'marriage' implies, yet it means everything to those who hold it as a religious institution.

Therefore it is an infringement on the rights of those who hold marriage as a religious institution.

It's like saying that you are baptised because you had a bath, and using this publically as a means to announce your cleanliness to the world. It's taking a religious term and using it in a secular manner and seems extremely disrespectful!

So what? Why should we care if some find it "disrespectful" that other people use the same term to - gasp - mean something of a non-religious nature? Religion isn't some sort of trump card that people can use to get their way. We aren't obligated to bend over backwards just to make sure you aren't offended.

 

[David Brider]

And in the oppositions shoes it is not?

Which opposition? I'd never go round saying that "The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing" to some people getting married (or having civil unions). You're the one who said that.

I agree, and as someone married for over 15 years I know that a successful marriage is largely commited, which is why I to expounded upon such earlier, even though it fell upon deaf ears at that time.

To me, the vow is the promise, the promise to commit to doing what you have vowed. Be it to love one another, respect, honour or even obey. Marriage is a commitment yes, but it is also greater than our commitment because of God's hand in it, should be believe thus.

I agree entirely.

Not at all, and that's not what I said.

Actually, that's exactly what you said:

The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing to those opting for a civil union, or are not of a religious bent, for they (should) enjoy all the benefits that 'marriage' implies, yet it means everything to those who hold it as a religious institution.

I suppose that depends on your religious bent. Do you not esteem the working of God to be Holy?

I do, yes. How do you see that as being relevant to your idea that people are somehow having their rights infringed by same-sex couples being allowed to marry?

It infringes upon the rights of those who believe it a religious institution that should remain unstained by the world.

No. People still have their rights to their beliefs.

Just as it may offend yours. What it boils down to is which group would incur more harm, if only one can be accommodated to the detriment of the other? I would say the one with much to lose, than the one to gain..

If same-sex marriage isn't legalised, people who don't want it to be legalised have gained a bit of self-satisfaction whilst same-sex couples who would like to marry have been denied that opportunity. If same-sex marriage is legalised, those against it haven't had their way but aren't in any way harmed by the decision, whilst those who would like to marry are enabled to do so. I wouldn't call either party particularly "harmed" in either case, but the latter situation (SSM is legalised) seems by far the better, for all parties concerned. Sure, the anti-SSM crowd have to get used to living in a world where people are legally allowed to do things they don't believe to be right/moral/acceptable. But that's just life. It doesn't actually harm people.

It isn't? Even if not, that doesn't make the trampling of the religious politically correct.

Nobody's is "trampling the religious". Some of the religious are being told that they can't get away with dictating to other people how they can and can't live their lives. That's not trampling them.

Not at all, for the only stipulation given in the Scripture is that a man shall marry a woman.

And you're still entitled to that belief. It's not remotely affected by same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

The fact that a "marriage" is extra-Biblical may offend the religious, most especially if it is touted as by God.

Well, I'm a committed Christian and I'm not remotely offended by what you see as "extra-Biblical" marriage.

 

[Joykins]

Here is one such example of your Court recognising vows as legally binding;



Not to even mention that your Civil law provides for abandonment clauses, etc.

In terms of law, the law creates the legal obligations of marriage (with its and tax implications, spouses not required to testify against each other, regarding the married couple as next of kind and default heirs for each other, for example--those things that turn a couple into a family unit in the eyes of the law) and the actions necessary to dissolve it (grounds such as separation for some time, cruelty, adultery, desertion, etc., plus the filing of a divorce case). What you vow at your wedding is actually irrelevant to the expectations of the law.

These laws vary a bit from state to state and country to country, too.

Finding a term in a legal dictionary does not mean that it applies in any and all cases of law where it is mentioned. Very often a statute will define its own terms.

 

[morningstar2651]

Because the term 'marriage' was inherently a religious one.

A knock-off of.

Are Jewish weddings a knock-off of Christian weddings?

Marriage is not inherently religious and definitely not inherently Christian. A Christian wedding ceremony is definitely a religious ceremony, but a marriage is not.

There is no such need to "defend traditional marriage" as that phrase means something that the proponents of that cause don't intend. Traditionally, weddings were arranged by families for political or financial reasons. The idea of marrying for love is actually a relatively new rebellion against tradition.

 

[Belk]

When there is a recovery, then can we can talk?

Or will you not even recognise this recession?

Great Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I recognize the recession. I just don't think it is a death blow to society as you claimed.

 

[Belk]

Because the term 'marriage' was inherently a religious one.

A knock-off of.

Obviously not since it started out as a secular vehicle for passing property from one generation to another.

 

[Paulos23]

The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing to those opting for a civil union, or are not of a religious bent, for they (should) enjoy all the benefits that 'marriage' implies, yet it means everything to those who hold it as a religious institution.

The reason homosexuals want marrage is that legally, in the US, it has the most legal protections. If civil unions had the same legal protections and rights, many would be fine with it. But most efforts to give them the same rights have fizzed or ended up turning into marrage. In my state, civil unions where given the same legal rights (over the protests of some religious groups) and then a few years later, we voted to make all of those civil unions marrages, because that was what they where.

Therefore it is an infringement on the rights of those who hold marriage as a religious institution.

It is also a civil institution, and that is part of the confusion.

It's like saying that you are baptised because you had a bath, and using this publically as a means to announce your cleanliness to the world. It's taking a religious term and using it in a secular manner and seems extremely disrespectful!

To late, it is used in secular discorse and laws, and other religions use the word as well. The Christian faith does not hold sole ownership over this word.

In fact I am personally offended that you want to make marrage a Christian only thing and nullify my own. Living in a multicultural free society means you are going to run against things you don't like and that offend you. But as long as it is not causing you harm, there is no reason to make it illegal.

Besides, the Bible is not a legal text.

 

[Belk]

The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing to those opting for a civil union, or are not of a religious bent, for they (should) enjoy all the benefits that 'marriage' implies, yet it means everything to those who hold it as a religious institution.

Therefore it is an infringement on the rights of those who hold marriage as a religious institution.

It's like saying that you are baptised because you had a bath, and using this publically as a means to announce your cleanliness to the world. It's taking a religious term and using it in a secular manner and seems extremely disrespectful!

That does not make any sense.

First, your claim that because I am not religious 'marriage' means little to nothing is obviously bunk or I would not be married.

Second, even if it was correct that would not correlate into an infringement on someone else simply because they have a religious tradition of marriage.

 

[morningstar2651]

The term 'marriage' most definitely means little to nothing to those opting for a civil union, or are not of a religious bent, for they (should) enjoy all the benefits that 'marriage' implies, yet it means everything to those who hold it as a religious institution.

Therefore it is an infringement on the rights of those who hold marriage as a religious institution.

It's like saying that you are baptised because you had a bath, and using this publically as a means to announce your cleanliness to the world. It's taking a religious term and using it in a secular manner and seems extremely disrespectful!

You don't have a right to prevent other people from getting married or a right to determine which religious ceremonies other people are allowed to participate in. That's not how rights work. Homosexuals aren't infringing on any rights when they get married, nor are Muslims or Jews.

To the contrary, we infringe upon their rights when we prevent them from marrying.

Marriage is not a religious term nor a Christian term. Marriage has existed long before Christianity in cultures that had no contact with Christianity. Different religions even had deities who governed marriage. For example, Hera was the ancient Greek goddess of marriage.

"From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required." - Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

 

[cow451]

Yet, let's go with the status quo for brevities sake?

What do you mean?

You claimed it was only performed by ministers, and I proved you wrong.

 

[Marius27]

He's forced to see the definition marred..

That's not a right. He holds no claim or ownership over an English dictionary word. It's called other things all over the world, including places where that institution has included same-sex couples for over a decade.

Words change meaning. "Nice" used to mean stupid, foolish, ignorant. Now it means agreeable, pleasant, kind.

 

[Joykins]

That's not a right. He holds no claim or ownership over an English dictionary word. It's called other things all over the world, including places where that institution has included same-sex couples for over a decade.

Words change meaning. "Nice" used to mean stupid, foolish, ignorant. Now it means agreeable, pleasant, kind.

It also used to mean nitpickingly precise.

I'm nice, in that sense

But most English dictionaries will describe a word as it is used (descriptive) rather than attempt to limit how it should be used (prescriptive a la the Academie Francaise). Perhaps if we were Francophones we could resist creeping usage changes.

 

[Armoured]

That's not a right. He holds no claim or ownership over an English dictionary word. It's called other things all over the world, including places where that institution has included same-sex couples for over a decade.

Words change meaning. "Nice" used to mean stupid, foolish, ignorant. Now it means agreeable, pleasant, kind.

But DEATH BEFORE ACCEPTING THAT LITERALLY NOW MEANS FIGURITIVELY! I'M NOT THRILLED ABOUT SINGULAR "THEIR" EITHER.

 

[Joykins]

Singular "their" is a very old usage though!

 

[Armoured]

Singular "their" is a very old usage though!

Still unacceptable.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Are Jewish weddings a knock-off of Christian weddings?

Marriage is not inherently religious and definitely not inherently Christian. A Christian wedding ceremony is definitely a religious ceremony, but a marriage is not.

There is no such need to "defend traditional marriage" as that phrase means something that the proponents of that cause don't intend. Traditionally, weddings were arranged by families for political or financial reasons. The idea of marrying for love is actually a relatively new rebellion against tradition.

Yes, but then we copied much of their religion when we broke away from them fifty years ago.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I wonder if the ancient Romans complained how Christianity was going to destroy the sacred institution of marriage.