Just because I don't know many people that are voting for the amendment, could you tell me how this will end up any better than "Prohibition" and why it's needed to make "moral" disciminatory laws against other citizens in this free country?
I mean, I'm a Christian too. But I realize that the church should have nothing to do with the laws being made and the personal freedoms of other people that are "not" Christian or even have a religion.
Just, could I get your stance on the matter? Is it entirely religious as to why you're for the amendment? And that you do recognize that everyone is entitled to the right to pursue happiness in America so long as it doesn't cause personal harm to others or interferes with another's civil liberties and rights?
I still am not sure how males can be in the majority when numerically there are more females then males. No one has quite been able to explain that to me yet.
Is limiting freedom on something that isn't harmful ever good? I thought that was kind of the point of the U.S. - you know, lifestyle freedom, do as thou wilt, my right to swing my fist ends where the other person's nose begins kind of thing.
There's a difference between believing that something is morally wrong and that something is legally wrong, to me. The job of religion is to deal with morality. The job of government is to deal with what's harmful in a practical sense - murder, stealing, discrimination, etc. That's always what separation of church and state have meant to me.
My opinions are thus: it is the prerogative of churches to discriminate as much as they like. Marriage as a holy institution has always been the bailiwick of the church. Marriage as a legal institution, indicative of shared assets and the other status changes that go along with it, is the province of government. With the introduction of an amendment to outlaw gay marriage, the two are mixed. Any two sentient creatures should be allowed, by U.S. law, to share assets, if they can pony up the money for a marriage license and sit down with a justice of the peace. That's what's in contention here. I think churches necessarily discriminate. The idea of Heaven and Hell seem to make that discrimination pretty clear. But that's okay - it's the point, actually.
So, basically:
Marrying whoever you want? Good, should be allowed, should not be outlawed, certainly no amendment. That's for things like, you know, suffrage and poll tax.
Church refusing to perform that marriage and still getting all its tax dollars? Equally good. Point of the church, even, to make some people welcome and others outcast, and to gain revenue by welcoming more people.
Discrimination? Done by legal institutions, bad. Done by employers, bad. Done by moral institutions, inherent and necessary.
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. - Matthew 22:21
For the most part I believe in the less government the more freedom individuals have. I had to think long and hard about this. On the first glance one would think that I am against the ammendment. However, without this ammendment I see the government or at least certains parts of it now imposing it's will on what is marriage and what is not. Marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Why are we trying to redefine marriage?
In short, I am for the ammendment because otherwise I see certain elements of the government trampling over the true meaning of marriage. However, I am perfectly fine with civil unions. I see no problem with that. I don't know why this isn't an appropiate comprimise at this time.
The only alternative that I would be somewhat comfortable with is if the meaning of marriage got redefined (which I personally see the peversion of the English language and the meaning of words for the benefit of a minority) that states could then define for themselves what marriage means and doesn't mean and states could then refuse marriage contracts from other states if they don't meet certain criteria.
All other possible objections aside (and I do have more):
Marriage was also once defined as a white man marrying a white woman, or a black man marrying a black woman, but never crossing that line. Do you object to the fact that the definition was altered in that manner?
That was also a perversion of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a man and a woman and nothing more. You are showing me one perversion of the word in order to justify another perversion.
The problem with civil unions are that they do not give all of the protections that marriages give. For instance, spousal privlege is denied in law courts to civil unions. Inheritance, decisions on health problems, health care coverage, etc. are all other problems as well. Civil unions just don't give anywhere close to the same legal protections as marriages, and if you go that route, you just end up with the same problems which existed in all other 'separate but equal' societies.
Finally, I also believe in less governmental involvement in issues dealing with personal freedom. However, this appears to be more concerned with denying rights to people who are doing 'bad'.
But these are just the problems you enter into when a government takes on a religious institution: marriage, and codifies it with laws. It would be better if people got married in churches, and joined legally in town halls. In that way, the persecution of those churches which allow gay marriage, polygamy, etc. would end because what people want to do on their own time and through their own belief system is fine.
But for government, which should provide equal opportunity and laws, civil unions should only be about taxes and legal rights and I don't see why that should be restricted.
So the right to marry the person they love is not a right?
Maybe we shouldn't have ANY legally recognized marriages then? Would you prefer that? Then your church doesn't have to worry about denying someone their rights. There ARE homosexual christians you know, although, for a good reason, I think the majority stay well away from churches. If I want to get married to another woman in a civil ceremony, how is that impacting you?
I know churches today that refuse to marry people for all sorts of reasons. How is this different? I know other churches who are more than happy to provide a ceremony to bond a same sex couple (called a marriage although LEGALLY it's not recognized as the same).
how does this impact your churches' rights? And why is your churches' rights so much more important than an individual's rights?
This is probably a bit late, but: I didn't even intend for there to be any debating about the issue on my journal, but I really didn't intend for this level of emotion to enter into it. While I like you and appreciate (and agree with) your viewpoint, I ask that the next time the issue comes up in my journal (or something else like it), you try to post a more calm and less attacking remark. No one's mind will ever be changed through curse words and name calling.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 26 Feb 2004 10:01 (UTC)Why are women considered a minority when they are 51% females and 49% males?
Re: really now
on 26 Feb 2004 10:37 (UTC)no subject
on 26 Feb 2004 10:45 (UTC)no subject
on 26 Feb 2004 15:29 (UTC)no subject
on 26 Feb 2004 16:06 (UTC)I mean, I'm a Christian too. But I realize that the church should have nothing to do with the laws being made and the personal freedoms of other people that are "not" Christian or even have a religion.
Just, could I get your stance on the matter? Is it entirely religious as to why you're for the amendment? And that you do recognize that everyone is entitled to the right to pursue happiness in America so long as it doesn't cause personal harm to others or interferes with another's civil liberties and rights?
no subject
on 26 Feb 2004 16:24 (UTC)no subject
on 27 Feb 2004 14:47 (UTC)no subject
on 27 Feb 2004 00:37 (UTC)Is limiting freedom on something that isn't harmful ever good? I thought that was kind of the point of the U.S. - you know, lifestyle freedom, do as thou wilt, my right to swing my fist ends where the other person's nose begins kind of thing.
There's a difference between believing that something is morally wrong and that something is legally wrong, to me. The job of religion is to deal with morality. The job of government is to deal with what's harmful in a practical sense - murder, stealing, discrimination, etc. That's always what separation of church and state have meant to me.
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 10:04 (UTC)My opinions are thus: it is the prerogative of churches to discriminate as much as they like. Marriage as a holy institution has always been the bailiwick of the church. Marriage as a legal institution, indicative of shared assets and the other status changes that go along with it, is the province of government. With the introduction of an amendment to outlaw gay marriage, the two are mixed. Any two sentient creatures should be allowed, by U.S. law, to share assets, if they can pony up the money for a marriage license and sit down with a justice of the peace. That's what's in contention here. I think churches necessarily discriminate. The idea of Heaven and Hell seem to make that discrimination pretty clear. But that's okay - it's the point, actually.
So, basically:
Marrying whoever you want? Good, should be allowed, should not be outlawed, certainly no amendment. That's for things like, you know, suffrage and poll tax.
Church refusing to perform that marriage and still getting all its tax dollars? Equally good. Point of the church, even, to make some people welcome and others outcast, and to gain revenue by welcoming more people.
Discrimination? Done by legal institutions, bad. Done by employers, bad. Done by moral institutions, inherent and necessary.
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. - Matthew 22:21
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:06 (UTC)For the most part I believe in the less government the more freedom individuals have. I had to think long and hard about this. On the first glance one would think that I am against the ammendment. However, without this ammendment I see the government or at least certains parts of it now imposing it's will on what is marriage and what is not. Marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Why are we trying to redefine marriage?
In short, I am for the ammendment because otherwise I see certain elements of the government trampling over the true meaning of marriage. However, I am perfectly fine with civil unions. I see no problem with that. I don't know why this isn't an appropiate comprimise at this time.
The only alternative that I would be somewhat comfortable with is if the meaning of marriage got redefined (which I personally see the peversion of the English language and the meaning of words for the benefit of a minority) that states could then define for themselves what marriage means and doesn't mean and states could then refuse marriage contracts from other states if they don't meet certain criteria.
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:21 (UTC)Marriage was also once defined as a white man marrying a white woman, or a black man marrying a black woman, but never crossing that line. Do you object to the fact that the definition was altered in that manner?
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:25 (UTC)Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:32 (UTC)Work, sadly, comes over political debates. I'm sure someone else will continue in my stead, however.
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:35 (UTC)Re: my nose begins here
Posted byRe: my nose begins here
Posted byRe: my nose begins here
Posted byRe: my nose begins here
Posted byRe: my nose begins here
Posted byRe: my nose begins here
on 28 Feb 2004 11:39 (UTC)Finally, I also believe in less governmental involvement in issues dealing with personal freedom. However, this appears to be more concerned with denying rights to people who are doing 'bad'.
But these are just the problems you enter into when a government takes on a religious institution: marriage, and codifies it with laws. It would be better if people got married in churches, and joined legally in town halls. In that way, the persecution of those churches which allow gay marriage, polygamy, etc. would end because what people want to do on their own time and through their own belief system is fine.
But for government, which should provide equal opportunity and laws, civil unions should only be about taxes and legal rights and I don't see why that should be restricted.
no subject
on 27 Feb 2004 20:08 (UTC)That really fucking annoys me and is the epitome of hypocrisy.
no subject
on 27 Feb 2004 20:10 (UTC)Re: nah, queer in the old english sense
on 27 Feb 2004 20:27 (UTC)Maybe we shouldn't have ANY legally recognized marriages then? Would you prefer that? Then your church doesn't have to worry about denying someone their rights. There ARE homosexual christians you know, although, for a good reason, I think the majority stay well away from churches. If I want to get married to another woman in a civil ceremony, how is that impacting you?
I know churches today that refuse to marry people for all sorts of reasons. How is this different? I know other churches who are more than happy to provide a ceremony to bond a same sex couple (called a marriage although LEGALLY it's not recognized as the same).
how does this impact your churches' rights? And why is your churches' rights so much more important than an individual's rights?
no subject
on 3 Mar 2004 04:10 (UTC)I didn't even intend for there to be any debating about the issue on my journal, but I really didn't intend for this level of emotion to enter into it. While I like you and appreciate (and agree with) your viewpoint, I ask that the next time the issue comes up in my journal (or something else like it), you try to post a more calm and less attacking remark. No one's mind will ever be changed through curse words and name calling.
*hug*
no subject
on 3 Mar 2004 14:42 (UTC)no subject
on 3 Mar 2004 15:27 (UTC)