NationStates Jolt Archive

gay or otherwise, then don't.

But don't tell other people what they have to do.

Is this something you could live with? Or is a marriage something like an exclusive Gentleman's Club which shouldn't allow women to enter or an expensive Golf Club, that allows Blacks only as nighttime cleaners?

A private club should be allowed to invite whoever it likes, it is a Private club. The State should get no say in the matter.

and what does this have to do with marriage?

and what does this have to do with marriage?

Good question. There are people saying that their own marriage becomes degraded if gays can marry each other too.

One of the problems is that there seems to be two types of marriage. One is performed in a church, with a priest, this is a religious ceremony and the State should have no say in the matter.

The other is performed at a courthouse, or by a state or local official not ordained by a church, this is clearly a state matter, and doesn't concern the Church. Except for the matter of the name, the State also calls it a marriage, therefore linking it with the religious ceremony.

So, if the State were to call all of its state sanctioned marriages by a different name, the Church would have very little say in the matter.

Good question. There are people saying that their own marriage becomes degraded if gays can marry each other too.

How is it degraded?
Do I degrade it by saying that I'm married to my wife as a lesbian? They can't prohibit me from saying that as often as I like, state sanctioned or not.

Or is it degraded by my love for my wife being as strong as their's is? That's not going to change either, and the state can't prevent me from loving her.

I suppose it's also possible that the strength of my love for my wife is such that their's might seem degraded, if their reasoning for marriage wasn't as sound as mine. The divorce rate seems to indicate that lots of people get married for the wrong reasons. My marriage has lasted 10 years now. I believe that vastly defeats the average of hetero couples who are legally married. So, yes, in essence, it does degrade their marriage if they married for the wrong reasons.

All we're asking here is for the same rights. The rights of survivorship, hospital visitation, and joint filing of taxes. If granting those rights degrade another's marriage, I'm pretty shocked.

My marriage has lasted 10 years now.


I'm also together with my boyfriend for more than 10 years now. The most difficult part? Whom do you ask for advice if there is trouble in the relationship.

A professional counselor that deals in same sex issues. They do exist :)

I think "degrade" is the wrong term to use. It does not degrade my marriage, but it does profane the religious ceremony.

My religion says it is wrong. If you are asking that all religions change their beliefs to fit your social preference...... well, that's not going to happen.

Oh, also, I see you called him your boyfriend. Haven't you married him yet? Even if it's not a 'legal' marriage, you can still have a nice ceremony, call him your husband, etc. If you love him that much, that is.

Unitarian Universalist churches sometimes are more than happy to perform marriages for same sex. Call around, see what you can find. Oh, and the atheist bit isn't a problem for UUs either. They welcome athiests, and by no means ever try to convert them to any religion. I think my wife said it best at a UU gathering "Come follow us, we're lost too".

Heck no. I'm not asking any religion to change their ideals. We're talking about state sanctioned marriage. America has a separation of church and state, so why should the rules of a few dominant religions affect everyone?

Well, the Church is trying to make it affect every one. I hate religion...

Based on the separation of church and state, they shouldn't even be trying to impose a clearly church based value on the whole of society. My religion has no problems with homosexuality. Doesn't that mean I'm being prohibited from freely practicing my religion?

Based on the separation of Church and State, the State has no say in religious matters. If the State wants to invent a non-religious union that has the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, then so be it. But that is up to each individual state and not the federal government.

Yes, but they've already gotten their paws into marriage. So if they want to create a civil union, they need to change all legal marriages to civil unions. Or they need to allow gay marriages. Either one would solve the problem. Anything else is either discrimination or segregation. Both of which are considered pretty bad by just about everyone.

A professional counselor that deals in same sex issues. They do exist :)

Now. And not even in all parts of the world.

I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to choose from discrimination or segregation. First, you say that you don't want to try to change people's beliefs, and that all you want is the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Then you say we all have to have the same name to our ceremonies, be it religious or state sanctioned. Next you'll want to get married in our churches.

I'm sorry, but if you say you have to have all or nothing, you're going to get nothing.

I think "degrade" is the wrong term to use. It does not degrade my marriage, but it does profane the religious ceremony.




I wouldn't marry in a church anyway.

Or do you mean you would feel strange to get married by a man who is not married himself and is not dressed like a man?

Wether he is married or not isn't really any of my business. If you're asking if I would find it strange to be married by a man in drag? Then yes, I would find it a bit odd.

Wether he is married or not isn't really any of my business. If you're asking if I would find it strange to be married by a man in drag? Then yes, I would find it a bit odd.


No, I was talking about a priest. :)

I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to choose from discrimination or segregation. First, you say that you don't want to try to change people's beliefs, and that all you want is the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Then you say we all have to have the same name to our ceremonies, be it religious or state sanctioned. Next you'll want to get married in our churches.
Who said religions had to refer to anything by the same name as the non-religious. You are more than welcome to refer to your religious unions as exactly that - relgious unions.

I'm sorry, but if you say you have to have all or nothing, you're going to get nothing.
As decided by you personally? Thankfully whatever dictatorship you may be the ruling power of, isnt the country of which I am a citizen.

I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to choose from discrimination or segregation. First, you say that you don't want to try to change people's beliefs, and that all you want is the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Then you say we all have to have the same name to our ceremonies, be it religious or state sanctioned. Next you'll want to get married in our churches.

I'm sorry, but if you say you have to have all or nothing, you're going to get nothing.

I wasn't asking for all or nothing. I was asking for equality.

Equality would imply that all marriages, homo or hetero, give the same rights and have the same name. Since the state already has something called "marriage" but only allows hetero couples to partake, an obvious solution is to merely call homo unions "marriage" as well. This may offend some religious people, but it is in fact a viable possibility. Using the term "Marriage" in this instance would still only refer to the legal union between two people.

Alternately, if people are very dead set on having a separation of church and state, thus eliminating the use of "marriage" in legal terms. All legal marriages would then be referred to as "Civil Unions". "Civil Unions" would also be available to both Hetero and Homosexual couples. Again, equality is achieved.

Where segregation comes into play is if the state calls Hetero unions "marriage" and homo unions "civil unions". Separate but equal. (The current state of affairs in a few states, ironically still preferrable to discrimination below)

Where discrimination comes into play is if the state says hetero can marry, and homo can not. (The current state of affairs in many states)

I'm a Pagan. I consider my religion profaned by people being denied the opportunity to marry the person they love. So it's not even a universal "religious" thing. Anyway, I think that churches should be forbidden from solemnizing civil marriages. Ends a lot of problems that way.