Your Religion and Stance on Gay Rights

[Sharpguard]

This question is open to all.

Me personally, am Agnostic, a bit Skeptical yet optimistic and open to the spiritual ideas of others.

I see no issue with homosexuals, and think that they deserve the exact same right as heterosexuals under the law.

However, I don’t believe the state has the right to say what “marriage” is, and needs to name it’s current marriages “civil unions” for all types of partnerships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Marriage is a very different meaning to people. To some it means the holy union of one man and one woman. To others it may mean absolutely nothing. To me it means a vow of commitment between two consenting peoples who share their love for each other faithfully, a bond that has lasted since the dawn of man.

This is open to people of all different religions (or lack of) and opinions.

 

[tr1strev]

What has lasted since the “dawn of man” as you say is a union between a man and a woman, not just a union between 2 people.

 

[Joe_5859]

Welcome to CAF!

I think the question is posed a bit inimically. It already invites heated conflict before the question is even answered. I suppose that’s unavoidable on this topic. Any way you phrase the question would probably be the same. I couldn’t think of a better way.

No one should be opposed to any person not having equal rights under the law. Any person, homosexual or heterosexual, has the right under law to marry one person of the opposite sex. There’s no discrimination or inequality there.

I know that even many Catholics agree with you that the State should “get out of the marriage business” and stick to “civil unions.” IMHO, that is a terrible idea. It is extremely short-sighted and it fails to acknowledge the truth of what marriage is, opting to play to semantics instead.

The fact is, marriage is something. We cannot change the definition. When a man and woman vow to each other to stay faithful to each other till death while raising children together, that is a marriage. It doesn’t matter if the State calls it a “civil union”. It’s still a marriage because that’s what marriage, in it’s essence, really is.

The US Bishops recently put out a wonderful document on marriage. I highly recommend it: Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan (pdf format)

I also recommend the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons for a more in depth explanation of why it’s a bad idea.

 

[firstmode]

I want this to happen:

1. Christians cannot drive government systems by their rules and morals. Government systems that have many different religious and non-religious must not dictate what their beliefs and morals are. I want the government of the united states to stop recognizing all marriages and only recognize contracts between any number of individuals. These contracts could be between father and son, man and man, woman and woman, multiple people with multiple people. All of these contracts would be legally drawn up and would discuss property ownership, wills, medical decisions, etc. All of these decisions would be totally customized and drawn up to the strictest details where judges could enforce them to the letter in legal disputes or when people want to break contracts with unethical or unmoral behavior that is agreed upon during contract signing based on any moral system they choose.
2. Businesses in America would have a right to decide to honor or to not honor these government protected contracts when it comes to benefits, etc.
3. All gay people can do whatever they want as long as they do not break the law of the United States or whatever country they are in.
4. Christians would stand as the strong and firm model of what a marriage is. People in secular society would not have what Christians have. Christians would have something special that sets them apart as followers of the Lord Jesus. Christians could even rename Marriage, maybe use the Hebrew word, greek word, Latin word, or Aramaic word for marriage and totally separate their type of union from the rest of society. Churches would have a right to recognize what it takes to come into these religious contracts before God and could deny anyone they want for whatever reason, much like when it comes to ordaining a person. The church has total power and decision over the process, no fear of legal disputes as the government does not recognize religious unions anyways.

 

[tr1strev]

I want this to happen:

1. Christians cannot drive government systems by their rules and morals. Government systems that have many different religious and non-religious must not dictate what their beliefs and morals are. I want the government of the united states to stop recognizing all marriages and only recognize contracts between any number of individuals. These contracts could be between father and son, man and man, woman and woman, multiple people with multiple people. All of these contracts would be legally drawn up and would discuss property ownership, wills, medical decisions, etc. All of these decisions would be totally customized and drawn up to the strictest details where judges could enforce them to the letter in legal disputes or when people want to break contracts with unethical or unmoral behavior that is agreed upon during contract signing based on any moral system they choose.
2. Businesses in America would have a right to decide to honor or to not honor these government protected contracts when it comes to benefits, etc.
3. All gay people can do whatever they want as long as they do not break the law of the United States or whatever country they are in.
4. Christians would stand as the strong and firm model of what a marriage is. People in secular society would not have what Christians have. Christians would have something special that sets them apart as followers of the Lord Jesus. Christians could even rename Marriage, maybe use the Hebrew word, greek word, Latin word, or Aramaic word for marriage and totally separate their type of union from the rest of society. Churches would have a right to recognize what it takes to come into these religious contracts before God and could deny anyone they want for whatever reason, much like when it comes to ordaining a person. The church has total power and decision over the process, no fear of legal disputes as the government does not recognize religious unions anyways.

I certainly hope that you never get what you want. You want the government of the US to stop recognizing marriages and only recognize contracts between “any number of people”? I think that may be worse than what was originally suggested. My question is this: Why alter what has been in every essence, the foundation of civilization?

 

[Joe_5859]

I certainly hope that you never get what you want. You want the government of the US to stop recognizing marriages and only recognize contracts between “any number of people”? I think that may be worse than what was originally suggested. My question is this: Why alter what has been in every essence, the foundation of civilization?

I agree. I really recommend the CDF’s document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, especially paragraphs 6-9. They give all the arguments from reason against legal recognition of these unions. We can ascertain that it’s not a good idea simply by looking at natural law without recourse to Divine Revelation.

 

[rick43235]

Sharpguard:

Me personally, am Agnostic, a bit Skeptical yet optimistic and open to the spiritual ideas of others.

Me too. Actually, I’m more than “a bit” skeptical, but I am hopefully open to the possibility of God.

I see no issue with homosexuals, and think that they deserve the exact same right as heterosexuals under the law.

Same here.

However, I don’t believe the state has the right to say what “marriage” is, and needs to name it’s current marriages “civil unions” for all types of partnerships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Marriage is a very different meaning to people. To some it means the holy union of one man and one woman. To others it may mean absolutely nothing. To me it means a vow of commitment between two consenting peoples who share their love for each other faithfully, a bond that has lasted since the dawn of man.

I tend to agree. If a couple wants the rights and protections offered by a civil union, let them go to the court house, fill out the forms, acknowledge them before a notary, and sign the form. Done - civil union. (Not marriage.) If they also want the union to be recognized by their church, let them do what is required by their church. Once those requirements are met - marriage.

As a man who is married to one woman, I personally have no problem with the current system. However, I recognize that not everyone fits this mold, and I don’t feel that those who are different should be denied legal rights and protections because of this difference. And I certainly don’t feel that they should be denied the rights and protections offered by a civil union just because some religious group doesn’t believe they should be rubbing their naughty parts together.

 

[SSTeacher]

I don’t believe the state has the right to say what “marriage” is, and needs to name it’s current marriages “civil unions” for all types of partnerships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Marriage is a very different meaning to people. To some it means the holy union of one man and one woman. To others it may mean absolutely nothing.

You apparently accept the right of individuals to decide for themselves what the word marriage means i.e. something holy or nothing whatsoever yet you evidently object to that same thought process if it is employed by state officials and given shape in legislation. I don’t understand your stance. :whacky:

Musingly,
Mick

 

[Joe_5859]

I tend to agree. If a couple wants the rights and protections offered by a civil union, let them go to the court house, fill out the forms, acknowledge them before a notary, and sign the form. Done - civil union. (Not marriage.) If they also want the union to be recognized by their church, let them do what is required by their church. Once those requirements are met - marriage.

I think your proposition shows a common misconception about marriage. Marriage is not simply a relationship with a church’s stamp of approval. Marriage existed long before any churches.

This is where, from the Catholic persepctive, I believe this approach is short-sighted. If things were to move in this direction, I think many people would be surprised that the Church would still recognize these “civil unions” as marriages, for all intents and purposes. This is because all the necessary components would still be there (at least for non-Catholics since Catholics have certain obligations defined by Canon Law in order to contract a valid marriage).

To allow the State to move in this direction is really to give the State far more power than I am comfortable giving them. By saying that “civil unions” and “marriage” are two separate realities, the State would effectively be defining marriage.

The State does not have the authority to change the definition of marriage. It is a reality that the State must protect because it is necessary for the good of society. It cannot abrogate it’s responsibility in this regard.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Well, I am de-lurking for this. Anyway, I am Discordian, and my religion states that: I don’t care what people do in their bedroom, and Eris sure as heck doesn’t either. (Eris is the matron deity.)

I’m pansexual, which means I will date someone for personality, not gender. As long as the person is a consenting adult, and I am attracted to them in that way, It’s all good. I’m in a monogamous relationship with a man right now, but only because he’s attractive to me and I love his personality. If he was another gender (Female, trans, hermaphrodite, intersex ect), I’d still be dating him. Also, I am androgynous, so I do not consider myself either gender. Biologically, I’m female, but mentally I’m somewhere in the middle. As a Discordian, I see things on a spectrum, as opposed to black and white, including gender. So long story short, whoever you want to date/love/have sex with is all good, as long as they are consenting and of age. Pedophilia and other paraphilias do not count, because children and animals cannot consent.

 

[Sharpguard]

I think people don’t understand my stance, simply put.

Some people believe Marriage is a Christian word meaning ONLY a union between man and woman.

Others see marriage as being around before the times of Christianity, and that marriage can be between people of both the opposite and same sex.

I think the issue is that if marriage is in fact a holy word, and the state only grants rights to those who are married, then that would in turn strip homosexuals of the monetary benefits of marriage.

To remove the conflict of the definition of marriage, to have marriage be a term to decide for yourself personally, and for the term civil union refer to the legal benefits given by the government to couples, all conflict is removed. Marriage is not defined by the state against the belief of anyone’s religion, homosexuals are not deprived rights, and church and state are separate. Everyone wins.

 

[tr1strev]

Well, I am de-lurking for this. Anyway, I am Discordian, and my religion states that: I don’t care what people do in their bedroom, and Eris sure as heck doesn’t either. (Eris is the matron deity.)

I’m pansexual, which means I will date someone for personality, not gender. As long as the person is a consenting adult, and I am attracted to them in that way, It’s all good. I’m in a monogamous relationship with a man right now, but only because he’s attractive to me and I love his personality. If he was another gender (Female, trans, hermaphrodite, intersex ect), I’d still be dating him. Also, I am androgynous, so I do not consider myself either gender. Biologically, I’m female, but mentally I’m somewhere in the middle. As a Discordian, I see things on a spectrum, as opposed to black and white, including gender. So long story short, whoever you want to date/love/have sex with is all good, as long as they are consenting and of age. Pedophilia and other paraphilias do not count, because children and animals cannot consent.

Respectfully, you are so far outside the mainstream of normal thought and behavior that it lessens your opinion and point of view. I say that not to be mean or dismissive even though I know that’s how it sounds. The fact that you have to define or explain what half of your reply means is evidence enough of its fringe standing. Others may, but I really find it hard to take you seriously.

 

[SSTeacher]

Well, I am de-lurking for this. Anyway, I am Discordian, and my religion states that: I don’t care what people do in their bedroom, and Eris sure as heck doesn’t either. (Eris is the matron deity.)

I’m pansexual, which means I will date someone for personality, not gender. As long as the person is a consenting adult, and I am attracted to them in that way, It’s all good. I’m in a monogamous relationship with a man right now, but only because he’s attractive to me and I love his personality. If he was another gender (Female, trans, hermaphrodite, intersex ect), I’d still be dating him. Also, I am androgynous, so I do not consider myself either gender. Biologically, I’m female, but mentally I’m somewhere in the middle. As a Discordian, I see things on a spectrum, as opposed to black and white, including gender. So long story short, whoever you want to date/love/have sex with is all good, as long as they are consenting and of age. Pedophilia and other paraphilias do not count, because children and animals cannot consent.

So, as far as you are concerned, what would be the age of consent i.e. at what age do you think children can be considered adults and date/love/have sex with whomsoever takes their fancy?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Sharpguard]

Respectfully, you are so far outside the mainstream of normal thought and behavior that it lessens your opinion and point of view. I say that not to be mean or dismissive even though I know that’s how it sounds. The fact that you have to define or explain what half of your reply means is evidence enough of its fringe standing. Others may, but I really find it hard to take you seriously.

I fail to see any “respect” in that at all, all you’re telling her is that because she doesn’t believe something “normal”, she doesn’t have a valid opinion.

This forum may be called "Catholic Answers, but this is a section about all religions, and allows people of all beliefs to to discuss holistic matter.

Please, be courteous and respect her beliefs like she respects yours.

 

[Joe_5859]

To remove the conflict of the definition of marriage, to have marriage be a term to decide for yourself personally, and for the term civil union refer to the legal benefits given by the government to couples, all conflict is removed. Marriage is not defined by the state against the belief of anyone’s religion, homosexuals are not deprived rights, and church and state are separate. Everyone wins.

But that’s just it, everyone doesn’t win. Arguing “civil union” vs. “marriage” is really just semantics. A man and woman vowing to be together for the rest of their life and raise children together is a marriage, no matter what anyone calls it.

Marriage ought to be rewarded because it is good for society as a whole. When marriage suffers, the whole culture suffers.

Homosexual couples are not deprived of any rights. They can make wills and other such things to guarantee next of kin benefits and the like. What benefits are they missing out on?

 

[tr1strev]

I think people don’t understand my stance, simply put.

Some people believe Marriage is a Christian word meaning ONLY a union between man and woman.

Others see marriage as being around before the times of Christianity, and that marriage can be between people of both the opposite and same sex.

I think the issue is that if marriage is in fact a holy word, and the state only grants rights to those who are married, then that would in turn strip homosexuals of the monetary benefits of marriage.

To remove the conflict of the definition of marriage, to have marriage be a term to decide for yourself personally, and for the term civil union refer to the legal benefits given by the government to couples, all conflict is removed. Marriage is not defined by the state against the belief of anyone’s religion, homosexuals are not deprived rights, and church and state are separate. Everyone wins.

No, everyone doesn’t win. Its not a win/lose proposition. Some things are so sacred, so fundamental to society and civilization that they stand the test of time for a reason. To change the definition of marriage or to allow 2 men to “marry” from the beginning of time to about 10 years ago would have been looked upon as being crazy. But now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to change? Why? Because some people are louder than other?

 

[Sharpguard]

No, everyone doesn’t win. Its not a win/lose proposition. Some things are so sacred, so fundamental to society and civilization that they stand the test of time for a reason. To change the definition of marriage or to allow 2 men to “marry” from the beginning of time to about 10 years ago would have been looked upon as being crazy. But now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to change? Why? Because some people are louder than other?

No, because freedom of religion is fundamental to a functioning society. People cannot control what they believe, just like you can’t force yourself to believe another religion, you can’t force someone else to believe something. What is so wrong with allowing two people of the same sex who love each other the right to the monetary benefits that straight couples receive? And why does even a “civil union” of two men or two women affect you so deeply? And doesn’t the church have a more powerful say for what marriage is than the state in your religion? If so, why would you strive for something as petty as a government made my man to recognize your opinions on homosexual unions, when the church really has the the true word of god?

 

[tr1strev]

I fail to see any “respect” in that at all, all you’re telling her is that because she doesn’t believe something “normal”, she doesn’t have a valid opinion.

This forum may be called "Catholic Answers, but this is a section about all religions, and allows people of all beliefs to to discuss holistic matter.

Please, be courteous and respect her beliefs like she respects yours.

I know what this section is about, thanks. She has every right to express her opinion as I did mine. She explained what her “religion” is and its beliefs. That is inviting comment. I stated how I felt, which is allowed.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Respectfully, you are so far outside the mainstream of normal thought and behavior that it lessens your opinion and point of view. I say that not to be mean or dismissive even though I know that’s how it sounds. The fact that you have to define or explain what half of your reply means is evidence enough of its fringe standing. Others may, but I really find it hard to take you seriously.

Rather be on the fringe and happy than in a Catholic or Christian church and be miserable. Sounds harsh, but I was a Catholic once, for 18 years. I was miserable. Also, I’d rather explain myself than have people ask stupid questions that I hear all the time. And how can you not “Take me seriously”? Would some definitions help? Or do I seem like I’m just BSing?

Pansexuality (also referred to as pans), or omnisexuality[1] is a sexual orientation, characterized by the potential for aesthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire towards people, regardless of their gender identity or biological sex. Some pansexuals suggest that they are gender-blind; that gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others.[2] For others, an individual’s sex, gender expression, or gender identity can be a key factor of attraction, despite the pansexual individual’s wide range of sex and gender attractions.

The word pansexual is derived from the Greek prefix pan-, meaning “all”. It is intended to negate the idea of two genders (as expressed by bi-).

The adjective pansexual may also be applied to organizations or events. In this context, the term usually indicates an openness to the involvement of people of all genders and sexual orientations in said organization/event, as well as the pansexual sexual identity.

And,

Discordianism is (and is not) a religion centered on the idea that chaos is all that there is, and that disorder and order are both illusions that are imposed on chaos. These are referred to, respectively, as the “Eristic” and “Aneristic” illusions. It was founded circa 1958–1959 by Malaclypse the Younger with the publication of its principal text, the Principia Discordia. There is some division as to whether it should be regarded as a parody religion, and if so to what degree.[1] It has been called “Zen for roundeyes”, based on similarities with absurdist interpretations of the Rinzai school. Discordianism recognizes chaos, discord, and dissent as valid and desirable qualities, in contrast with most religions, which idealize harmony and order. Eris, the Greek mythological goddess of discord, has also become the matron deity of the religion Discordianism.[2]

 

[tr1strev]

No, because freedom of religion is fundamental to a functioning society. People cannot control what they believe, just like you can’t force yourself to believe another religion, you can’t force someone else to believe something. What is so wrong with allowing two people of the same sex who love each other the right to the monetary benefits that straight couples receive? And why does even a “civil union” of two men or two women affect you so deeply? And doesn’t the church have a more powerful say for what marriage is than the state in your religion? If so, why would you strive for something as petty as a government made my man to recognize your opinions on homosexual unions, when the church really has the the true word of god?

Answer me one question: Do you believe that 3 consenting adults should be able to marry?