Comment by James on August 25, 2010 at 8:35pm

I fully support that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Sadly the religious aspect is a hurdle our country has yet to clear. In my opinion there is a somewhat simple alternative that could help somewhat. "Secular marriage' and 'religious marriage' should be kept as separate entities. Basically, EVERYONE who gets married would be entering into a 'marital union' of sorts. Both straight and gay couples. This would be the legal form of marriage, free of religious bigotry or need for religious approval. Yet receive the full benefits of marriage. These will not be recognized by the church however, as they could be a simple contractual agreement or any ceremony the couple chooses. Conversely, there would remain the option of a religious marriage performed in the couples church. This could be separate from the aforementioned union or combined with it. Sort of like to the government, you are an adult at 18. But if you are Jewish, your Bar Mitzvah signals that point. They both carry the same significance, yet the religious view is not forced buy the followers. In concept this would work, but it would require the religious to butt out of other peoples business and suspend their bigotry. For that reason, I fear that this idea would only have marginal results because there is really no reason that the current system shouldn't work either. I know all too well, the disdain held of same-sex-marriages. When I was a believer, I hated the idea (and it's proponents) as well. Luckily I saw the light or reason and changed my ways.

Comment by Mark Strange on August 25, 2010 at 8:41pm

We already have it, a marriage isn't recognized by the state unless it's licensed... or common law in some cases.

Comment by James on August 25, 2010 at 8:53pm

Yeah, I realize that, but was thinking that calling the two something different, might remove some of the zealots from the discussion. Sadly, it would still require people to not be close-minded though...

Comment by Mark Strange on August 25, 2010 at 9:13pm

I understand the concept of what your saying, but to me, it sounds like when We had to different schools - two different water fountains - two different bathrooms, one for black and one white people, not that that is the intent it just seems to discriminatory. "Atheist and gay people are not good enough for 'marriage' they have to have 'unions'" this is the way I think people will feel.

Comment by James on August 25, 2010 at 9:32pm

I agree, Mark. I don't like that there should even be a need for it, or really like the idea when I think about it for a few minuets. I guess the idea stems from this... I hear far too many people around here say, "Civil Unions is one thing, but Marriage?!?! No way!!" It's as if these people have no idea that marriage isn't automatically Christian. They literally think that gays will descend upon their church to get married in the middle of their Sunday service... Truth is, it's not the law that really needs to change, as anyone who wants to be married should be allowed to do so. Rather it's those that are bigoted against it that need to learn to deal with it and allow equal rights for all, just as our Constitution dictates.

Comment by Mark Strange on August 25, 2010 at 9:36pm

Exactly

Comment by Andres Molestina on August 26, 2010 at 12:00am

I'll butt in on this one as the devil's advocate, just a little!!!!
If we strip away religious, social, personal, etc., points of view and look at it 100% objectively....ready? Every organism in this earth has but a single purpose above all else, to reproduce before they die. Gay couples (and catholic priests) break this "rule". Now, that being said, I do believe that gay couples should be granted every right that is given to heterosexual couples, let them deal with divorce and ale-money (hi hi hi). I actually feel bad that I am forced to use "them" to refer to another group of human beings, but sadly we live in that kind of society. I only dream of the day that we can look at someone and say "that is a fellow human and I should love him as such" and forget all these labels that politics and religion have forced onto us, we still have a long way to go and a lot to learn from each other!

Comment by Mark Strange on August 26, 2010 at 5:17am

What you mentioned before as "The Devil's Advocate," is the Crime-Against-Nature argument, I have heard Christians and fellow Atheist use this argument when they can’t come up with anything better then “I don’t like it.”

In an attempt drudge up a solid argument against gay marriage they say things like: "Every organism in this earth has but a single purpose above all else, to reproduce before they die." Whereas, I suppose, It is a strong drive in nature to reproduce, people use this argument to hint that being gay is "unnatural" and therefore being gay is wrong and they should not get married.

It’s like a good Christian to state things without facts but fellow atheist should know better. Being gay is not “unnatural” It occurs all the time in nature. We have documented Homosexual Bugs, Birds, Mammals and Fish. Creatures that supposedly run on only instincts most of the time (what does that tell you?).

Comment by Andres Molestina on August 26, 2010 at 11:16am

@ Strange, I only brought up the argument, I am in favor of gay marriage. And yes, there are documented cases of homosexuality in nature but to the detriment of a species (see snow owl). On other less extreme cases it is that reproductive drive that I was talking about that makes animals engage in this type of behavior, but it is at best described as bisexual.

@ Haan, Yes, I believe that by marrying I am securing my genetic heritage as I am guarantying exclusivity in reproduction and in the same token preventing genetic anomalies by making sure that genetic lines don't mix down the line. AND, I was playing advocate, I am in favor of being free and loving whomever you feel like loving (my best friend and college roommate was gay). I do believe that humans are different than animals in so many ways (abstract thought, spacial & critical thinking patterns, range of emotion, morals, etc) and as such we are past this natural argument that I brought into the conversation, like I said, i just brought it up, and if any gay people took offense to the argument, I am sorry but for the purpose of healthy argument i had to throw it in the mix.

Comment by Andres Molestina on August 26, 2010 at 11:19am

Before anyone tries to correct me, I did mean to say "was gay" as he is now married and has 2 kids.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page