How my View of Gay Marriage is not changed

[CopticChristian]

Gay activists somehow believe that they are the only protestors. While there is a separation of Church and State, Churches have the right to protest as well. In Britian the parallel exists that similar arguments that exist there are mirrored in the USA and are being entertained…

Churches Challenge British Government Over Same-Sex Marriage

nytimes.com/2012/06/13/world/europe/churches-challenge-uk-government-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1

The bishop of Sheffield, the Rev. Steven Croft, said the government plans represented a “really, really fundamental change to an institution which has been at the core of our society for hundreds of years and which for the church is not a matter of social convention but of Christian doctrine and teaching.”

Roman Catholic bishops in England and Wales said in a statement, “In the interest of upholding the uniqueness of marriage as a civil institution for the common good of society, we strongly urge the government not to proceed with legislative proposals which will ‘enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.’ “

Should Churches challenge Same Sex Marriage?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Why not abolish state-marriages? The state should recognise no marriage. If people want to get married they can do so sacramentally in Church or, if they’re gay or not religious, organise some sort of ritual elsewhere and call it marriage. Everyone happy.

 

[Holly3278]

I hope and pray that “gay marriage” does not become legalized in the UK.

 

[epan]

Gay activists somehow believe that they are the only protestors. While there is a separation of Church and State, Churches have the right to protest as well. In Britian the parallel exists that similar arguments that exist there are mirrored in the USA and are being entertained…

Churches Challenge British Government Over Same-Sex Marriage

nytimes.com/2012/06/13/world/europe/churches-challenge-uk-government-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1

Should Churches challenge Same Sex Marriage?

In the US, the Catholic Church, and the Church of LDS, did join forces and treasuries to fight for Prop 8 in California. Their efforts are generally credited for swaying the vote to come out contrary to the majority opinion, as determined in polling.

Every person or group should have a voice. Though I object to the size of the voice that corporations get, based on recent court decisions.

Yes, of course the Catholic Church should speak out on important moral and social issues.

I think there is a lack of genuine leadership in our society because people are so afraid of the resulting reaction. I would advocate that people speak out more, and also that people be more civil when they do so.

It is illegal for a priest or minister to tell parishioners how to vote in the US. If they do so, they only risk losing their tax exempt status. It is not an attempt to limit speech, but a legal distinction between different types of organizations for taxation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gay activists somehow believe that they are the only protestors. -]While/-] Because there is a separation of Church and State, Churches have the right to protest against the government -]as well/-].

Note needed changes.

If there were no separation of Church and State, the State would be (synonymous with) the Church. Religious institutions are advocacy groups just like any other advocacy group with First Amendment rights not reducible by the fact of their religious identity

 

[Elizabeth502]

In the US, the Catholic Church, and the Church of LDS, did join forces and treasuries to fight for Prop 8 in California. Their efforts are generally credited for swaying the vote to come out contrary to the majority opinion, as determined in polling.

The majority of those who voted on Prop 8 voted for it, regardless of what they claimed to support before and after that vote. If a minority of voters registered a Yes vote, the Proposition would have been defeated. Simple math. The majority spoke.

If there were, rather, a majority of non-supporters of Prop 8 (of legal voting age & status), and some or many of those “polled” before or after election day did not vote, then they couldn’t have been passionately against the measure, or they would have transported their rear-ends to the voting booths that day. The only poll that matters is the one which registers a vote on decision day.

 

[epan]

The majority of those who voted on Prop 8 voted for it, regardless of what they claimed to support before and after that vote. If a minority of voters registered a Yes vote, the Proposition would have been defeated. Simple math. The majority spoke.

If there were, rather, a majority of non-supporters of Prop 8 (of legal voting age & status), and some or many of those “polled” before or after election day did not vote, then they couldn’t have been passionately against the measure, or they would have transported their rear-ends to the voting booths that day. The only poll that matters is the one which registers a vote on decision day.

I have a theory about this. We know from polling that the majority of Americans have supported gay marriage for some years. FOX recently ran a feature, asking exactly the question: why do the surveyed opinion poll results vary from the voting poll results. FOX comes up with its own conclusions, but here is what I think.

1. The majority of those opposed to gay marriage see it as a moral issue which affects them personally. They have a strong stake in the issue. So, they will tend to turn out to vote.
2. The majority of those who support gay marriage are heterosexual. While gays are very likely to vote on the issue, the balance of their support is not as likely to vote, in varying degrees.

In California the margin was narrow. FOX also speculated that this coming election may be the turning point in which the vote might represent a majority opinion on this topic.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have a theory about this. We know from polling that the majority of Americans have supported gay marriage for some years. FOX recently ran a feature, asking exactly the question: why do the surveyed opinion poll results vary from the voting poll results. FOX comes up with its own conclusions, but here is what I think.

1. The majority of those opposed to gay marriage see it as a moral issue which affects them personally. They have a strong stake in the issue. So, they will tend to turn out to vote.
2. The majority of those who support gay marriage are heterosexual. While gays are very likely to vote on the issue, the balance of their support is not as likely to vote, in varying degrees.

In California the margin was narrow. FOX also speculated that this coming election may be the turning point in which the vote might represent a majority opinion on this topic.

Wrong on number 2. Again, anyone who felt passionately about the issue, pro or con, voted on Election Day. That included both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Those who didn’t vote were not wiling to commit their opinions in an official manner, for a variety of reasons (“didn’t affect them,” “didn’t have a stake,” etc.). There was no passion there, or it would have been registered on election day. And don’t assume, btw, that those not voting were all heterosexual. Plenty of homosexuals disagree with the entire concept of homosexual marriage; some of them voted for the measure; others undoubtedly did not show up on election day.

But it doesn’t matter: there was not the passion against the measure among the majority of voters. Who cares what anyone’s “theory” is? The majority of passionately interested voters spoke.

 

[Elizium23]

Why not abolish state-marriages? The state should recognise no marriage. If people want to get married they can do so sacramentally in Church or, if they’re gay or not religious, organise some sort of ritual elsewhere and call it marriage. Everyone happy.

You have just attacked traditional marriage in a manner that gay activists swore they would never do, and they mock straights for even thinking that traditional marriage will be eroded by their “civil rights” efforts.

 

[epan]

Wrong on number 2. Again, anyone who felt passionately about the issue, pro or con, voted on Election Day. That included both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Those who didn’t vote were not wiling to commit their opinions in an official manner, for a variety of reasons (“didn’t affect them,” “didn’t have a stake,” etc.). There was no passion there, or it would have been registered on election day. And don’t assume, btw, that those not voting were all heterosexual. Plenty of homosexuals disagree with the entire concept of homosexual marriage; some of them voted for the measure; others undoubtedly did not show up on election day.

But it doesn’t matter: there was not the passion against the measure among the majority of voters. Who cares what anyone’s “theory” is? The majority of passionately interested voters spoke.

lol… you are funny. If nobody cares about my opinion, then why should anyone care about yours? Interesting how that works.

I disagree with you on point two. We can leave it at that.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

You have just attacked traditional marriage in a manner that gay activists swore they would never do, and they mock straights for even thinking that traditional marriage will be eroded by their “civil rights” efforts.

Before Napoleon and his conquests, driven by Enlightenment ideals, the state didn’t do marriages in Europe. So my view on marriage is more traditional than yours, it seems.

 

[epan]

Before Napoleon and his conquests, driven by Enlightenment ideals, the state didn’t do marriages in Europe. So my view on marriage is more traditional than yours, it seems.

Reclassifying civil marriage as Civil Union, and leave marriages to Churches and other religious orgs is probably the fairest solution for everyone.

 

[ASimon]

You have just attacked traditional marriage in a manner that gay activists swore they would never do, and they mock straights for even thinking that traditional marriage will be eroded by their “civil rights” efforts.

How is it an attack on traditional marriage to make traditional marriage the exclusive purview of the Church that has always claimed to hold the only true definition of the word?

If you want to guarantee that gay marriage never becomes a reality, this is the only way to do it.

 

[fix]

Why not abolish state-marriages? The state should recognise no marriage. If people want to get married they can do so sacramentally in Church or, if they’re gay or not religious, organise some sort of ritual elsewhere and call it marriage. Everyone happy.

The state has an interest is supporting and protecting marriage. It is not simply any contract, despite the rhetoric.

 

[Elizabeth502]

lol… you are funny. If nobody cares about my opinion, then why should anyone care about yours? Interesting how that works.

I disagree with you on point two. We can leave it at that.

I said the word “anyone’s” opinion, not just yours or just mine. It doesn’t matter what our opinions are as to why a vote proceeded. It has nothing to do with whether or not The Majority spoke – which is what your contention was: that somehow, privately, secretly, the “true” majority in CA opposed Prop 8. That’s absurd. The true majority approved the measure, because that majority showed up on Election Day. If there was some secret wish by others to defeat the measure, they didn’t have the testicular fortitude, apparently, to put their money where there private thoughts were. That is a mathematical, objective fact – not subject to either your opinion or my opinion, or any news commentators’ opinions. The math on election day speaks: the majority favored Prop 8.

So your point two is irrelevant to the conversation, because your entire point was that there was some silent majority which actually opposed Prop 8. Your theory about it is irrelevant, because your theory only addresses why they might have been silent. If there was a private majority, they remained private on election day. That’s the bottom line. Those who opposed Prop 8 (whoever they were, however many they were) were uninterested in registering their opposition.

 

[fix]

Before Napoleon and his conquests, driven by Enlightenment ideals, the state didn’t do marriages in Europe. So my view on marriage is more traditional than yours, it seems.

That is not true in the US. How does that make your position correct?

 

[fix]

How is it an attack on traditional marriage to make traditional marriage the exclusive purview of the Church that has always claimed to hold the only true definition of the word?

If you want to guarantee that gay marriage never becomes a reality, this is the only way to do it.

Everyone new what marriage was up until about 10 years ago.

 

[epan]

I said the word “anyone’s” opinion, not just yours or just mine. It doesn’t matter what our opinions are as to why a vote proceeded. It has nothing to do with whether or not The Majority spoke – which is what your contention was: that somehow, privately, secretly, the “true” majority in CA opposed Prop 8. That’s absurd. The true majority approved the measure, because that majority showed up on Election Day. If there was some secret wish by others to defeat the measure, they didn’t have the testicular fortitude, apparently, to put their money where there private thoughts were. That is a mathematical, objective fact – not subject to either your opinion or my opinion, or any news commentators’ opinions. The math on election day speaks: the majority favored Prop 8.

So your point two is irrelevant to the conversation, because your entire point was that there was some silent majority which actually opposed Prop 8. Your theory about it is irrelevant, because your theory only addresses why they might have been silent. If there was a private majority, they remained private on election day. That’s the bottom line. Those who opposed Prop 8 (whoever they were, however many they were) were uninterested in registering their opposition.

Actually, my opinion agrees with experts. You might look up the FOX story.

Gay Marriage will likely be the law of the land, in the US, in England, and in many other countries. Your opinion will have no influence on that. Neither will mine. It will be interesting to see how the gay items on various state ballots fair the 2012 elections.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

That is not true in the US.

Of course not, most of your founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment so that’s the foundation your state is built upon.

How does that make your position correct?

That, apparently, the state doesn’t have to meddle in Church business, like sacraments, to make the world go round. States back then were much more Christian than now, yet nobody back then made a problem of the fact that state officials didn’t do marriage, except secular humanists, that is.

How is it an attack on traditional marriage to make traditional marriage the exclusive purview of the Church that has always claimed to hold the only true definition of the word?

If you want to guarantee that gay marriage never becomes a reality, this is the only way to do it.

That’s my point!

 

[edwest2]

Why not abolish state-marriages? The state should recognise no marriage. If people want to get married they can do so sacramentally in Church or, if they’re gay or not religious, organise some sort of ritual elsewhere and call it marriage. Everyone happy.

Nope. Not a good idea. The State has a vested interest in promoting the general welfare. Same-sex marriage does not fit in with a society based on a family unit that is capable of reproducing.

Peace,
Ed