I don't understand the stigma of "marriage"

[ShockQueen]

I posted about this on my Livejournal, but I just wanted to get some more views on this, so here goes. This is copied from there: Splitting hairs on the word "marriage" For a country that professes it has a "separation of church and state", I have to say that is the biggest bold-faced LIE in the history of our country - especially in this day and age. Religion is played into SO heavily when it comes to matterws of law and state, it's a joke to think we ever HAD a separation. All the conservatives are all up in arms saying the word "marriage" is only between a man and a woman. Well then, I suppose next they'll say that any union that doesn't take place in a CHURCH isn't considered a marriage (what about those of us who were married by a judge?). I mean, why stop at just the gay population? Why not exclude ALL they don't seem fit? It's looking like an exclusive club there. Don't give me any "separation" crap - we KNOW the conservatives are going to use religion like a club to get its own way. One of my friends brought this up, and I'm surprised it hasn't been acted on before. If the religious right are so adamant about what they view as a "marriage", then how about this.....make the word "marriage" STRICTLY a religious status? For all LEGAL purposes (protection, adoption, legal rights, family rights, etc.) give all those rights that are afforded to what are now "married" to all people not protected, protect them under the "civil union" or even better - "lifemate" status. Something that allows ALL people to affirm and protect their love and devotion to each other. People are going to love who they love, no matter what law says they can't, so those of you who are so splitting hairs about this, how about you take your "marriage" wordplay and grow up! You are so adamant about denying a group of people one of the basic founding principles of our country - the pursuit of happiness, that you will stop at NOTHING to squash it under your mighty boot. Let people love and be free. That's what this country is supposed to be about, isn't it?

[Smitty55]

Well, I have to agree that the separation of church and state is a crock--the separation has been taken too literally now for too long. That 'separation' was intended strictly to stop the power and control of the church from influencing the actions of the country, and nothing more, but it has been 'redefined' by the people and the politicians. The term marriage, however, has been traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman. It is now the aim of these extremists to 'redefine' that term--and others. I don't think the big ballihoo is so much about the religious implications of the word marriage as it is about the traditional use of the word--and the further implications such use would bring. For example, there are even agnostics that are up in arms about the 'definition' change here. Insisting that it is religious beliefs that are under attack will offend them. There should be no objection to two people of the same sex being joined together, the main objection is that some people want the different states of uniting people who love each other all to be called by one term. Have those people stopped to think that would potentially cause even more problems? Examining those implications, lets take it to the next step. How many same sex couples would take offence to this common situation. When told that the person, a woman, is 'married', how many would take offence to being asked where their 'husband' is? Likewise, if the person is a man, how many would take offence to being asked where their 'wife' is? You see, it isn't just a matter of discrimination, but of trying to be polite and proper to people who obviously would take offence to a matter of address that they would force upon all of us. I make that statement because of the obvious offence they take to not being able to be called 'married'. As you can plainly see, there is value in keeping traditional definitions and adopting new ones for new situations.

[Bubba136]

So far, I can only agree with Smitty 55. So, what else did you want to know? The author of the material you posted is most likely a "secular progressive" … a person that believes all things social and governmental must be "sans" religion or religious reference... individuals who are not content with the current state of affairs in the United states and wish to mold [America] in the image of Western Europe. Traditionalists, the opposing group, believe that our founding fathers, built this nation upon a firm, strong foundation of religion and faith in God. The under pinning of their belief is in the family unit and places emphasis on spirituality, selflessness, and charitable causes. It was in "search" of a place where the founders of the United States could live and practice their religion without fear or interference from a central government. (Catholicism in France, the Church of England, etc. All "official state" religions that refused to accept the practice of any religion except that approved by the "state"). Hence the voyage of the group of people known as "Pilgrims" to the Netherlands on their way to Plymouth Rock outside of what is now Boston. Where, as "most" U.S. American Citizens know, they established a community which after a few fits and starts, finally took root, grew and flourished. Now, there is a group of Homosexuals that believe that they should have the right to "marry" a person of the same sex. Even though this group has been afforded the status of a "domestic partnership” in most legal jurisdictions, they believe that that title doesn't give them the "identical status or standing" as that of people married to a partner of the opposite sex. While I fail to see the difference, apparently it makes a great deal of difference to them. I've often posted here on this forum, that I really don't care what sexual orientation or persuasion an individual claims. That is between him and his "maker" or with/amongst people of like thinking. What I don't appreciate is anyone, straight or homosexual, rubbing my nose in his/her (their) sexual orientation. It “rankles” me. There are two types of marriages in most every country. One is a civil union that is recognized by state law and is usually conducted by a judge, justice of the peace or other certified, registered agents of the court. The other is a religious union that is also recognized by state law but is conducted by a certified/registered Ordained Minister, Pastor or Rabbi (or other recognized religious leader). The only real difference is that ceremonies conducted by religious leaders are "sanctified" by a "person of God" and, more often than not, the ceremony is conducted in a church or other house of “worship” where as ceremonies conducted in the hall of a court house by a judge, doesn’t provide the "religious feeling of their marriage being "sanctified in the eyes of God." The whole issue, in my opinion, is a "red herring" in that it is just another issue where the homosexual community believes it isn't being "treated" exactly the way they think they should. And, quite frankly, their continued unruly activist demonstrations are doing more harm to their cause than good. They would be much better off just accepting their current status and working from within the system to change the law seeking the status they believe to be appropriate. One other thing. Almost everyone spouting the "separation of church and state" claimed to be in our Constitution, doesn't really know what they're talking about. Amendment Number 1 to the Constitution of the United States of America, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That is the entire text of the 1st Amendment. Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that there will never, ever, be mention of religion or God in any public or governmental entity, what so ever. So, unless you read far more into these words, like the Supreme Court has done with Abortion, what these people claim to be true -- just isn't.............no matter how you spin it the text of this Amendment is perfectly clear. Paraphrasing: The government will never establish an “official state religion” in the United States.

[Guest]

oh, I heartly agree with you shockqueen, ALL the way, too. I my self have been thinking about this in almost very same way as you. there just isnt any real kind of seperation of church & state in this country when it always seems to come to stuff like this! & that my good friend is so sad!

[Guy N. Heels]

In addition to what Bubba sez, the plain and simple fact is that I can take my wife anywhere in the world and declare her to be my wife and our union would be immediately recognized. On the other hand, try introducing your same-sex partner in the same way and see what happens. There are places where the two of you would immediately be seized and slain on the spot! Now I don't make the rules for societies, I just try to live by them. But it seems to me that any sort of practice that would immediately place my life in jeapordy would at least be worthy of a much longer look. If, for example, I were to suddenly find my life in jeapordy because of my religious beliefs, well that is something that has been well thought-out and evaluated. My beliefs lie at the very core of my being and I cannot imagine life without the ability to practice what I believe. I would just as soon face death. Is this exactly how those who decry the need for same-sex marriage feel, or would they suddenly decide that their need for social approval really is not such a life & death matter when they find themselves in some location where the glittering sword is about to render all arguments moot? I cannot help but believe that the muzzle of an AK47 sticking someone's ear or the swift and glittering sword might cause quite a few to change their minds. One more thing: as Bubba correctly pointed out, nowhere does the US Constitution (which I am sworn to uphold) say anything about the separation of church and state. It never mentions a wall nor does it employ the word church, and neither does it speak to the matter of separation of the church from the state. Neither does it say that the use of prayer or the Bible in public places is unlawful, but rather, it guarantees all citizens of the several states the right to the free exercise of their religion, which is greatly trampled upon these days. So if we were to take a much longer look at the Bill of Rights and then compare it with the Communist Manifesto what we might find actually being practiced in America today greatly resembles the Communist Manifesto which enslaved the Russian people for more than 80 years!

[Trolldeg]

In addition to what Bubba sez, the plain and simple fact is that I can take my wife anywhere in the world and declare her to be my wife and our union would be immediately recognized. On the other hand, try introducing your same-sex partner in the same way and see what happens. There are places where the two of you would immediately be seized and slain on the spot!

...and this has any kind of relevance to anything?

Is this exactly how those who decry the need for same-sex marriage feel, or would they suddenly decide that their need for social approval really is not such a life & death matter when they find themselves in some location where the glittering sword is about to render all arguments moot? I cannot help but believe that the muzzle of an AK47 sticking someone's ear or the swift and glittering sword might cause quite a few to change their minds.

meaning: Gay people are cowards who would easily claim to be heterosexuals just to save their rotten hides. Hey, maybe they aren't that "gay" to begin with, and could probably be set straight with the proper "motivation".

[Stilettoscot]

No offence, Guy-N-heels, but your post leads folks to the conclusion which Trolldeg speaks... The original point of the thread, from what I understand, is how the US Government is intregating Church into Law, and how the term "seperation of Church and State" applies... Since this is about the United States, I fail to see how being somewhere else in the world and being shot/stabbed for being married to the same sex applies to anything here.

[tightsnheels]

I presume that what Guynheels is trying to say is that IF a same sex couple where to travel to some places in this world and indeed within the US they would not recognize their matrimonial rights. As we all well know some places are very backwards on this sort of thing. People have been killed for being homosexual within the US and we tend to be much more tolerant than countries run under Sharia Law.

I for one can see Smitty's point as well. Would people find discrimination in being asked about their opposite sex partner? I don't know and I am sure we would have many different opinions on that if we allowed this thread to get to that point.

Should a church have sponsored so adamently the pushing of Amendment 8 (I think that's right.)? No, I don't think so. Would I support the right of a homosexual couple to marry? As a conservative most people would find my answer an abomination but YES I would support their choice to be married just as I would any other couple. My own church would read me the riot act but to me God made us all and God doesn't make junk. Every person is made with a value to our creator and every person is a reflection of Her/His image. (Yes I have a different view of God I feel that like me He is androgynous.) I feel that their are a lot of people who are going to start (or have been) spewing a lot of quotes from the Bible and all I can say to them is to look in their own mirror first and clean their own "house" before attacking another. I prefer one quote from the Bible and only one: "Let he who is among you without sin cast the first stone."

Let's be calm and work this out the way it should be by altering the laws where they need to be altered and not by yelling insults at everybody.

T&H

P.S. If indeed I have insulted anybody with this it was not my intention.

[vector]

I think Guy N. Heels was trying to put the shoe on the other foot by postulating how a heterosexual couple would feel or react if they had to deal with some of the issues that same sex couples deal with.

[Guy N. Heels]

All posts are well writen and well presented. Yes I was rather "turning the tables" as it were, because the only reason that I can see for same-sex couples to insist upon a state known as marriage is social recognition. All other considerations can be dealt with through contractual law. But for thousands of years men have lived by the precept that a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Therefore, anything else that you care to name has to be known by some other name. Moreover, there are indeed areas of this planet which are quite apart from the USA where that other thing, whatever name you care to use, would be so offensive that immediate execution would be the only acceptable solution to that society. Therefore this really has nothing to do with "Church vs State". It is a matter of social norms within a given society.

I was also hitting at the difference between a preference and a conviction. As I am sure that some you sharp guys out there know, a preference is what you choose when you have nothing to lose: 3" heels vs 4" heels, a blue outfit vs a green one, and so on. On the other hand, a conviction is what you believe and what you state when someone has got an AK-47 stuck in yer ear and you know only too well that your next words will probably be your last. That's the difference between the Jews who admitted to the Nazis what their beliefs were and those who would tell them anything to keep from going to the death camps. When someone like Hyndrich Himmler has his dagger at your throat and you admit your beliefs anyway, then you have a conviction that is stronger than anything that anyone can do to you.

Furthermore, I have said nothing about the rightness or wrongness of such a same sex union, but I will now plainly state that God, through the pages of His holy word, calls such an act an "abomination"! So the real issue here is that any and all who practice such things will be dealt with directly by God - not me. Is this why the so-called "separation of church & state", which is nowhere to be found in the wording of the US Constitution, so important? I have a letter from one of my senators who plainly declares that the so-called wall of separation should be,"..high and impregnable..."! With that kind of muddle-headed thinking on the part of our elected officials, it's no wonder America is in so much trouble! If they could be at least a little bit honest and admit that no such language is to be found in our founding documents, then things might be different. As it is, Americans deserve the kind of crooks that we elect to office!

Well now that I've got everyone good and mad at me, I hope we can start talking about wearing heels to our Thanksgiving celebrations, or something.

[Stilettoscot]

I ain't mad. And I'd love to discuss heels and Turkey!

[Guy N. Heels]

I ain't mad. And I'd love to discuss heels and Turkey!

Fine with me, but I think we need to start another thread for that one.

[Jen J]

I will not go into one of my long rants, but, if you live in this country there is no seperation of anything and the state. The government is involved in everything. The reason is to make money. For example: 1. Licence plate 2. renewal sticker 3. Income Tax 4. State Tax 5. Sales tax 6. Sales tax on something which already had tax paid on it - used car. 7. fishing licence 8. Tax stamp - smokes, booze 9. Marriage licence 10. burn permit 11. capital gains 12. business licence 13 Dog Licence Get the point. If they can make money on it they will. Until the "right" people figure out how to make a buck off of it, things can and will be viewed negatively. If the "thing" has a negative stigma, then it will not make enough of the "right" people happy therefore, not making the other folks any money. Get the church to have an acceptable view of alternative marriage and you will be able to get hitched at a 7-11, for a fee of course. Jen. "sorry if I went off track."

[Guy N. Heels]

I will not go into one of my long rants, but, if you live in this country there is no seperation of anything and the state. The government is involved in everything. The reason is to make money. For example:

1. Licence plate

2. renewal sticker

3. Income Tax

4. State Tax

5. Sales tax

6. Sales tax on something which already had tax paid on it - used car.

7. fishing licence

8. Tax stamp - smokes, booze

9. Marriage licence

10. burn permit

11. capital gains

12. business licence

13 Dog Licence

Get the point. If they can make money on it they will. Until the "right" people figure out how to make a buck off of it, things can and will be viewed negatively. If the "thing" has a negative stigma, then it will not make enough of the "right" people happy therefore, not making the other folks any money.

Get the church to have an acceptable view of alternative marriage and you will be able to get hitched at a 7-11, for a fee of course.

Jen. "sorry if I went off track."

Jen, you haven't even scratched the scratch. What about:

14] building permits,

15] renovation (improvement) permits,

16] tree removal permits,

17] disposal permits (and/or taxes),

18] parade permit,

19] yard sale permit,

20] hunting license,

21] property taxes,

22] school tax,

23] telephone tax,

24] luxery (excise)tax,

25] estate (death) taxes, and

26] tax on the tax?

BTW, the Irish Tenors sing a song about "Only the River Runs Free"; only here in America we dammed that up too. About all that's left is the wind.

[tightsnheels]

BTW, the Irish Tenors sing a song about "Only the River Runs Free"; only here in America we dammed that up too. About all that's left is the wind.

Don't give them too many ideas or they will either tax the wind or find a way to stop it as well.

T&H

[Eggnog]

Don't give them too many ideas or they will either tax the wind or find a way to stop it as well.

T&H

All too true, dad. The government is a bit tax happy at times.

[roniheels]

All too true, dad. The government is a bit tax happy at times.

Yes, that's true. And isn't the UK pretty tax happy, too?

[Nick-65]

Look folks, It's been a while since I've posted but, I'm going through seperation, Divorce, Child support, and custody battles all at once right now. I have also met a wonderful young lady that I love dearly and am seriously considering getting re-married to in the future. Our relationship is way over and above anything that I've ever dreamed of. Only problem is that we're almost equal height so, when she wears heels, she is taller than me, so, she wears flats alot.I also wear my Danskos so we make a little better match in height. As far as "Marriage" goes, well, I still believe that it is between a man and a woman and that has nothing to do with the government, it is just because I'm Heterosexual and my "VALUES" are very traditional. Hope I did not anger anyone, Take Care and Happy Holidays, Nick:wave:

[Guy N. Heels]

...Only problem is that we're almost equal height so, when she wears heels, she is taller than me, so, she wears flats alot.I also wear my Danskos so we make a little better match in height.

As far as "Marriage" goes, well, I still believe that it is between a man and a woman and that has nothing to do with the government, it is just because I'm Heterosexual and my "VALUES" are very traditional... Nick:wave:

Forget about what the "govmnt" sez. The average congresscritter in Washington has to get 50 faxes before he has any idea what he thinks a marriage is.

[Stilettoscot]

Well, I guess you guys have never met a truly happy couple who just so happened to have been of the same sex then. If you have, then you guys probably aren't nearly as interested in people being truly happy as much as your personal beliefs.

[Bubba136]

Look folks, It's been a while since I've posted but, I'm going through seperation, Divorce, Child support, and custody battles all at once right now. I have also met a wonderful young lady that I love dearly and am seriously considering getting re-married to in the future. Our relationship is way over and above anything that I've ever dreamed of.

Only problem is that we're almost equal height so, when she wears heels, she is taller than me, so, she wears flats alot.I also wear my Danskos so we make a little better match in height.

As far as "Marriage" goes, well, I still believe that it is between a man and a woman and that has nothing to do with the government, it is just because I'm Heterosexual and my "VALUES" are very traditional.

Hope I did not anger anyone, Take Care and Happy Holidays, Nick:wave:

Sorry about your current situation. Breaking up a marriage is a difficult thing to do. So many loose ends that won't quit flapping until your children are grown and have families of their own.

Forget about you and your new GF being equal height. The key to a happy and successful marriage depends on what's in your heart not if you can see eye to eye or what you're wearing on your feet.

And, who gives a "flip" if someone becomes angry at you expressing your opinion about same sex marriages. If they believe that you are wrong they have every right to express their disagreement. However, the fact that they might not agree isn't license to become angry at you for your opinion.

Hang in there. Even though there isn't yet any light at the end of the long divorce tunnel, things are bound to become easier as time passes, especially when you have the support of all of your friends at hhplace.

[dww]

Live & let live, I always say, do your own thing no probs, your not hurting anybody afterall.

[Guy N. Heels]

Well, I guess you guys have never met a truly happy couple who just so happened to have been of the same sex then. If you have, then you guys probably aren't nearly as interested in people being truly happy as much as your personal beliefs.

Somehow folks seem to always get everything all knocked outta shape on this topic. What if I tell you that I truly want everyone to be happy, unless the thing that makes 'em happy is hurting and killing other people? Would you be happy then? But when I also say that the Bible tells us that God considers homosexual behavior an abomination then we start getting the kind of quote above, "...your personal beliefs..." Hey, my personal beliefs really have nothing to do with it! The Bible describes how several cities were overthrown and utterly destroyed because the behavior of the inhabitants was an utter abomination before God. Was that MY opinion or belief, did God check with me on that first? Big news flash! I wasn't even born then!

Moreover, angels set by God to deliver Lot and his family had to lead him by the hand ,to get him out of town. Was that my spin on the story or what the Bible reports? Lot's wife looked back upon the cities with longing and anguish and became a pillar of salt; again, my idea or what the Bible says? The simple fact is that I had nothing to do with any of those events! I neither approve nor disapprove. So just exactly what do my beliefs have to do with the subject at hand?

[Elegant]

Unless there is a strong historical proof that can objectively confirm what Bible says, it's your belief [and not only your, but other people's as well].

[HappyFeat]

When discussing the separation of church and state, what most people seem to miss is the issue is NOT the separation of church and state, its the separation of religion from politics. Church and state are quite separate in the United States. No marriage recognized solely by the church is recognized by the state unless the proper licenses is obtained, etc. No matter who it is between. The state has established an age of consent, the fact that a person may only be legally married once, that only people who are competent to enter into a contract may be married, etc. A church can sanctify any relationship it chooses but it may not be a legally binding marriage in any jurisdiction until it is filed in an organ of the state, such as a courthouse. That being said, religion and politics has a long history of being inherently bound together. Religious arguments were used to BOTH defend the institution of slavery and eventually bring it down. The civil rights movement in this country was started in the pulpits. The anti-war movement in the 1960's had a strong tie to religious institutions. Believe it or not, there are many churches who not only defend gay marriage, but actually sanctify it. What strikes me as strange on this site is that there are many people - men who would like to dress as they choose - who seek acceptance from the greater world, but who use terms like "they" or "agenda" when discussing equal protection for others who live and behave differently. If we were to apply a religious perspective to this, look at Deuteronomy 22:5 - "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." I guess we pick and choose what is traditional, an abomination, or a right.

[kneehighs]

....snip....

What strikes me as strange on this site is that there are many people - men who would like to dress as they choose - who seek acceptance from the greater world, but who use terms like "they" or "agenda" when discussing equal protection for others who live and behave differently. If we were to apply a religious perspective to this, look at Deuteronomy 22:5 -

"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."

I guess we pick and choose what is traditional, an abomination, or a right.

I think that is a great point. It reminds me of the passage in the book of James 2:10-11

10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Romans 2:1-4 also seems to have applicable value to this context, especially for those who make 'idols' out of their shoes.

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

And no, I'm not a Christian, just educated.

[Guy N. Heels]

Many valid posts and points made. Still, if the concept of marriage that men have lived by for thousands of years is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, then that is what I'll have to go with. Any other notion is just too modern to suit me. Now that I've had my say, I think I'll drop out of here and go to bed.

[HappyFeat]

Great thread...religion, sex and politics...if we threw in money we none of us would ever be considered polite company again!

[Guy N. Heels]

Great thread...religion, sex and politics...if we threw in money we none of us would ever be considered polite company again!

Polite company??? I thought you knew that they have to be licensed to publish this stuff in public!

But to resurrect this thread before it goes to the "old thread graveyard", the California Supreme Court has finally heard the arguments on Proposition 8.

Now for all you non-Californians, Proposition 8 was on the ballot in last November's election to amend the state's constitution so that the institution of marriage would be defined as being between a man and a woman, and banning all other arrangements as illegal. But then certain groups brought a lawsuit challenging the outcome of Proposition 8, which passed by upwards of 52% of the popular vote Last November. Well naturally, the suit had to wind it's way through the courts until it finally reached the state supreme court.

Now when I heard about this matter I was absolutely agast that the supreme court even agreed to hear the case. After all, if the high court hears the case and then decides differently from what the majority of the voters voted for back in November - that bodes ill for democracy in every jurisdiction in every state within these United States. Just think on it! If the high court should decide differently from the will of the people, then any decision at any ballot box in any jurisdiction in this land could be swept aside by the opposition through the simple act of filing a lawsuit and then getting a judge (or group of judges) to overturn the election results. In effect, it would make the vote of every citizen meaningless! If the election results weren't to someone's satisfaction - all they would have to do is simply go to court. Then, if that court still didn't produce the desired results, appeal the decision and keep going back to court until you get what you want! So where is the meaning of any citizen's vote? In effect, everyone's citizenship would become neutralized!!!

Therefore, for the sake of democracy alone, I most sincerely hope that the high court will uphold the decision obtained at the ballot box in last November's election.

[Bubba136]

Given the current state of our country, and the direction that the Obama administration is pointed, where do you thing we're going? If we aren't already there, we're damn close to it. Damage that will never be undone.