First of all, I am not gay, but I am not against homosexuality. I am concerned about the success and tactics of the movement. What is the biggest reason people want same sex marriage? I would say that it is so homosexuals who are also religious can get married in the church, and be able to have it recognized "by god." But I see this as partial insanity because the bible contradicts this idea, and many Christians will not recognize it as valid.

So are gays wanting to change the religious/political construct of marriage, and get churches to accept this? To me, this is a losing battle because it clearly does state in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. I do not agree with this stance, but it seems to be written into the moral code of Christians, and several other religions that recognize marriage. I think it would  be more effective if gays were to focus on marriage rights than it is to focus on what it is "called." If they started a movement that did not involve the word marriage at all, it could be more effective. People clearly don't like the term "civil union." It does sound cold, like going and getting paperwork drawn up or something that dry. I am not against "gay marriage," because I am not religious, nor do I think it is wrong. But what I am saying is I think this is a losing battle (legally) because it involves trying to change religion's deep-seated moral constructs. There has to be a better way to increase the rights of homosexuals, and prioritize one step at a time-from a political strategist's perspective. I'm very curious about what you think!

Views: 595

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That may be why this fight is getting so muddy, because gays are getting confused on the issue -is it about rights or righteousness? My prediction is until the movement is solidified more, there will be only minor changes here and there in the United States. Simplifying it would be the way to go, to me. Stop focusing on the words, people!! Rights! Equal rights, not equal words!!

So who are you to tell gay people they should be satisfied with a "domestic partnership"?  How would you like to be told you can't get married since you are unworthy as a human being?  If it was me, I would be very annoyed. 

Read this,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hk6pIM4E9oLr_RAxn...

I'm saying that it is a start. I am talking about adding gasoline to the fire. How long will it take to get social change and legal rights for gays in all 50 states doing it the current method? I think we need to take what we can get; look at it as every step that increases the rights of gays is a win. Even if it is a one step at a time thing. What has happened in Hawaii is an example of this problem of using the word "marriage." 

I suspect this is now headed to SCOTUS.

There are several cases in appeals courts that look like defenders of "traditional marriage" are trying to push to the Supreme Court because they keep losing. These things keep getting knocked down again and again. It will eventually turn out like Loving v. Virginia where interracial marriage bans were over turned in all states by a SC decision.

Since when did expressing my own thoughts amount to telling anyone anything? So people who think they are wrong should just shut up, according to Simon Paynton?

First to clarify, I am very pro-gay rights. And I think gays should have all the same rights as people who marry in the United States. But there is no denying that we are a heavily religious country, Christian oriented. And there are PACs all over the country that do not want gays to be able to "marry." I want to know how many people have tried to fight legally as in suing for the same rights as a married couple, without being concerned about the word "marriage"? And what happened? Because under the 14th amendment, Equal Protection Clause, should back this up at the state level. Political reasons and agendas of Christians are keeping the movement down. Period. Gays need access to these rights, because Christians (namely the ones in power) are cock-blocking these rights. I am simply saying, does this make sense from a political strategy/legal strategy standpoint to fight using this word-the very word that Christians in power will defend till the death? I am inclined to think you need to learn to walk before you can run. But what I mean to call into question is whether or not gays rights should fight using a word that has such a deep religious meaning for so many Christians that it causes a pushback of sorts on those grounds alone. I don't think we should fight the game against "Christian thinking." I want this movement to focus more on the human rights side of things, and less on "we want to do what you do, and call it the very same thing."

Majority beliefs don't sway the Federal court (normally). The courts have more than once gone against the popular opinion, especially if it involves an equal protection issue. And if the word "marriage" is the one use in the statutes, then that is the terminology that will hold. There are cases on their way now to the Supreme Court with the LGBT groups already successfully arguing their cases in lower courts. So, it appears the strategy is appropriate so far. A similar pattern held with the civil rights movement in the "Deep South" - a very religious stronghold. And the majority of Americans are only nominally Christian. The "separate but equal" approach that you are suggesting hasn't been upheld for very long.

I believe the primary thing that gays want is to be accepted as first-class citizens with full rights and privileges.

They have that in a domestic partnership, though. What right don't they have? How important is it? So important that they would hand back all those gains just to have it. Of course not.

This is a situation where they have won, don't seem to know they have won, and continue on fighting like the Japanese soldiers who continued holed up in the hills of New Guinea after WWII was over. To go further at this time will simply make them annoying and cost them support. 

Would “domestic partnerships” make people more equal to or less equal to married people?
The term sounds discriminatory already.


Scenario: - Job interview: “I think you more than meet all the qualifications for this role and you are on the shortlist. So Jane, are you single or married? Oh you are in a domestic partnership? Ok, we will be in touch. Thanks for stopping by.


That does not sound too farfetched now does it?

Well, gee, domestic partnership is a form of marriage, so "married" is a truthful response.

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

Dealing with the unexpected

Posted by Belle Rose on May 1, 2015 at 4:25pm 7 Comments

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service