RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 10:23:06 PM)
Posted at 3/18/2014 1:01:20 AM quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren I am not sure what you wrote is true. You need to clear your cache. K.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 10:26:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Lucy it just amazes me how arguments over this naming issue of marriage are debated so passionately when the real issues are ignored. It has nothing to do with the word marriage... or religion in particular... It has everything to do with it. However, it's the religious nuts that are making the most noise about it. A lot of hetero people who are not religious are also complaining about it too. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is just plain and simple human nature and the revulsion of gay behavior by many straight people and their inability to overcome this way of thinking that has been mainstream since the beginning of civilization. Whilst this may be true, it is still (unfortunately) the majority PoV at this time. On a personal note, I have a problem with it too. Why? Because I'm a Pagan. To be legally "married" (and not in a church setting), I still had to spout certain godly words. I could get around that by having a 'civil' ceremony instead. But I'm not allowed to have a civil ceremony because I'm being joined (married) to a member of the opposite sex. So.... the gay community want to use the word "marriage" but us non-gay people aren't allowed to have a civil joining??? How fucked-up and one-sided is that?? A member of our family is gay and we went to his civil ceremony in 2010, so I did a lot of digging about ceremonies and what is allowed and what isn't (for the UK). Our gays here get exactly the same rights as those that are legally "married" so I don't see what the fuss is all about. Those hetero's and religious people that want to keep it a sacred word for their ceremony, why not? So on that premise, why are the gay's kicking up such a fuss over it?? When everything is equal, maybe things will change.... maybe. The problem is you didn't do your research, you are are in the uk and you aren't looking at the US, the law is different here. First of all, a straight couple in the US could get a domestic partnership or a civic union if they wanted to, but why would they bother? Marriage gives them a lot more rights......and if they don't want a religious marriage, they can get married by a justice of the peace or other civic official and not have to say the God word. In the US, as a pagan, you could get married in a pagan handfasting or whatever, legally, a pagan priest or priestess can marry you and it will be recognized as legal, it has to be, or you could do a pagan ceremony and then get a clerk to marry you for the legal portion, and not have to say God (from what I know, you can get married by a judge or whatever in england, too, I don't know what this forced to say the god thing is..the civic ceremony doesn't mention god). What you are leaving out is the US does not have the equivalent of a UK civic union or whatever they call it. Because of the constitution, marriage is determined by the states, the federal government has nothing to do with that. Some states do offer same sex couples civic unions, but those only apply to the state you live in. Get a civic union, and the federal government doesn't recognize it (roughly 1100 rights/benefits) since in federal law, only marriage is granted benefits; move to another state, and it is meaningless. Heck, right now, a same sex couple gets married in NJ, where I live, and it will be recognized only in states that themselves recognize same sex marriage. Gays are fighting over the term marriage because it is the only way to guarantee full rights. Same sex couples with a legal marriage in their state now have full legal recognition, thanks to SCOTUS throwing out the DOMA legislation congress illegally passed, from the federal government, and eventually, other states will probably be forced to recognize it as well, thanks to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. The law is a weird beast, and language matters, and marriage, unless they rewrite federal law and all 50 states come up with a unified term for same sex unions, is the only way to have all the rights in the US.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 10:29:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic why cant you have a civil ceremony??? They won't allow us to have one. [X(] If we were both of the same sex, no problem. But not same sex?? No, we must get "Married", a civil ceremony isn't allowed for that reason. We can have our own (Pagan) ceremony, but it won't be legally recognised. ETA: It's quite black-and-white. Same sex joining = civil ceremony. Different sex joining = marriage. And never the twain shall meet. They don't allow you to get married by a magistrate or some other functionary, you have to go to a church? I thought they had civil weddings where you didn't have to say religious vows...friend of mine from the UK did a civic wedding (hetero couple), they were married I believe by a magistrate or judge and they said their own vows, that were not religious.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 10:31:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Why not defuse the controversy with the fundies and simply consider all civil officiated unions "domestic partners" and leave "marriage" to the churches. That would make sense, I totally agree. But what you are leaving out is those that claim that marriage is the problem, the term, would never agree to that, *because their ultimate goal is to make sure that gay couples don't enjoy the same rights they do. You seem to have an "ultimate goal" too, but it's not the one you think. quote:* ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren why not propose that the term marriage not be used in the law at all... Actually, that works fine for me. K.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 11:01:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic why cant you have a civil ceremony??? They won't allow us to have one. [X(] If we were both of the same sex, no problem. But not same sex?? No, we must get "Married", a civil ceremony isn't allowed for that reason. We can have our own (Pagan) ceremony, but it won't be legally recognised. ETA: It's quite black-and-white. Same sex joining = civil ceremony. Different sex joining = marriage. And never the twain shall meet. They don't allow you to get married by a magistrate or some other functionary, you have to go to a church? I thought they had civil weddings where you didn't have to say religious vows...friend of mine from the UK did a civic wedding (hetero couple), they were married I believe by a magistrate or judge and they said their own vows, that were not religious. You don't have to go to church. And yes, you can have a 'civic' wedding (emphasis on the word 'wedding'). But you can't have a 'civil' ceremony in the same way that a gay couple can. But in either case, you have to have a certain set of words or the marriage isn't recognised in law. It sucks!! I know 'cuz we tried - it wasn't allowed. I even wrote to our local MP about it but apparently it's the still the law here and it is still governed by the religious nuts from centuries ago. Even in these liberated days, the law and church have not entirely separated (yet). "It is also possible to have your own choice of vows and promises that have a special meaning to both of you, although these will be in addition to the statuatory declaratory and contracting words that are required to be said by both of you for your marriage to be legal." Source: http://www.weddingguideuk.com/marriage-in-england-and-wales/ So even now, you have to say certain words otherwise it ain't legal. And over here, it doesn't matter if it's a civil ceremony or a pucker marriage (in or out of a church) - if it is legally recognised, you get exactly the same rights and priviliges (unlike the US it seems where they appear to differentiate between the two). But the religious pundits, and others, are still arguing about the use of the word 'marriage' for gay couples.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 11:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 you have to have a certain set of words or the marriage isn't recognised in law... So even now, you have to say certain words otherwise it ain't legal. From your link.... The marriage ceremony at a licensed venue is a civil ceremony. No religious content whatsoever is allowed. Declaratory Words I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, [your full name], may not be joined in matrimony to [your partner's full name]. Contracting Words I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, [your full name], do take thee, [your partner's full name], to be my lawful wedded wife [or husband]. Alternative Declaratory Words I declare that I know of no legal reason why I, [your full name], may not be joined in marriage to [your partner's full name]. -or- by replying ‘I am’ to the question ‘Are you, [your full name], free lawfully to marry [your partner's full name]‘. Alternative Contracting Words I, [your full name], take you, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband]. -or- I, [your full name], take thee, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband]. I don't know whether you'd care to go into it, but I'd be curious to know what problem these pose for a Pagan? K.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 11:21:25 PM)
having gone thru a civil ceremony, that is practically the words that were used. no mention of god, no mention of religion. which is why I asked.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 1:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 you have to have a certain set of words or the marriage isn't recognised in law... So even now, you have to say certain words otherwise it ain't legal. From your link.... The marriage ceremony at a licensed venue is a civil ceremony. No religious content whatsoever is allowed. Declaratory Words I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, [your full name], may not be joined in matrimony to [your partner's full name]. Contracting Words I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, [your full name], do take thee, [your partner's full name], to be my lawful wedded wife [or husband]. Alternative Declaratory Words I declare that I know of no legal reason why I, [your full name], may not be joined in marriage to [your partner's full name]. -or- by replying ‘I am’ to the question ‘Are you, [your full name], free lawfully to marry [your partner's full name]‘. Alternative Contracting Words I, [your full name], take you, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband]. -or- I, [your full name], take thee, [your partner's full name], to be my wedded wife [or husband]. I don't know whether you'd care to go into it, but I'd be curious to know what problem these pose for a Pagan? K. Because we didn't want the particular fixed words you need to say that make it 'legal'. It's the specific "take thee" and the "wedded..." bit we specifically didn't want. We picked a lovely Pagan ceremony that used a different turn of phrase - quote: DECLARATION OF INTENT HP/S: What is your name? (Answer with legal and/or Craft name). HP/S: And what is your desire? Answer: To join with s/he whom I love. HP/S: __________, will you have this woman/man to be your partner, to live together in marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honour and keep her/him in sickness and in health, for as long as love may last? Answer: I will. HP/S: _{man}_ and _{woman}_, you stand before me, the Gods, and this company, having desired the bond of marriage. Do you do this of your own free will, coming here today without coercion or pressure from other persons? Answer: I do. HP/S: Will you seek to do her/him harm? Answer: I will not. HP/S: And if harm is done, will you seek to repair it? Answer: I will. HP/S: Will you seek to be honest with her/him in all things? Answer: I will. HP/S: Will you support him/her in times of distress? Answer: I will. HP/S: Will you temper your words and actions with love? Answer: I will. HP/S: These things you have promised to your partner, before this company and the Gods. May you ever be mindful and strive to keep the vows you have spoken. (These vows may be spoken with a tying of a cord or ribbon about the wrists of the enjoined after each answer, with the HP/S adding, “And so the bond is made” or “And to that promise you are bound.”) This a small part of what we wanted. It is still giving a solemn oath to each other and sworn before witnesses. But, because it specifically doesn't have the required set words, it would not be deemed 'legal'. ETA: For us, neither partner 'takes' nor 'gives' - we come together willingly and make a promise to each other. This is why we specifically objected to the "take thee" bit - but it is still required by law to make it legal. [X(]

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 1:23:07 AM)
oh I see so its not that you arent allowed, its that because you sont like 2 words in the actual ceremony ok

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 1:27:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic oh I see so its not that you arent allowed, its that because you sont like 2 words in the actual ceremony ok Yes. Those very specific words. And for that reason, it wasn't allowed.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 1:31:37 AM)
Im not surprised However its far different than the gay marriage position...

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 2:53:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As no one has yet explained how hetero marriage is devalued by allowing queers to marry... As no one here has claimed that, it is a crimson clupeid. K. As the sentence you quoted makes clear, I hadn't claimed that any one here was advancing that argument. As my original post made clear, the 'devaluation argument' is an argument commonly advanced by opponents of marriage equality, particularly those coming from a religious background. However, there are obvious echoes of this argument to be found in several posts here. Any one advancing an argument that queer relationships are not entitled to be recognised in the same manner as straight ones is clearly insisting that queer relationships are somehow different, that queer relationships are undeserving of the full recogition afforded to straight relationships through the institution of marriage .... that queer relationships are somehow inferior or less valid than straight ones. Unless an assumption along these lines is being made, it simply doesn't make sense to argue for different statuses for straight and queer relationships. Perhaps those people can advise me why, for example, heterosexual child rapists are automatically entitled to have their relationships (with opposite sex adult partners) recognised while queers have to go without.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 5:23:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle However, there are obvious echoes of this argument to be found in several posts here. Any one advancing an argument that queer relationships are not entitled to be recognised in the same manner as straight ones is clearly insisting that queer relationships are somehow different, that queer relationships are undeserving of the full recogition afforded to straight relationships through the institution of marriage .... that queer relationships are somehow inferior or less valid than straight ones. Unless an assumption along these lines is being made, it simply doesn't make sense to argue for different statuses for straight and queer relationships. Of course there's a difference. If it didn't make any difference to people whether they had a contra-sexual partner or a same-sex partner, there wouldn't be an issue. Nor is it necessary to deny that difference in order for them to enjoy equal legal rights. Men and women enjoy equal legal rights. Why do some people find it necessary to indulge in derogatory assumptions about anyone whose opinion is at variance with their own? Personally, I am indifferent to which of the two options eventually obtains. But I'm tired of seeing sincere people, who wish gays no ill, portrayed as if they were of the same ilk as those of whom we will soon have one less. K.

chatterbox24 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 5:31:56 AM)
Acknowledged and accepted. Thank you. As far as falling short, that is just being human[:D] I made a routine of it on a consistent basis, but I try harder these days. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: A man tells me he is a church lady and that would not cause anyone confusion? I rarely pay attention to profiles if someone has one. I am seriously laughing so hard. Really? It is not because I can't supply information I have decided I would rather not. This is not rational to you but may God bless you and I mean that in sincerity. I will leave fancy talk to the intellectuals. I apologize. I should not have gotten personal. That's a line I usually strive not to cross, but sometimes, as in this thread, I fall short.

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 6:41:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub There is your proof in the written word.... homophobia preceded religion.... if not then you must agree there is a real vindictive God. Please tell me you're trolling me right now and aren't serious? quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Will which is it ... there IS a God and he IS against gays... or the very mortal men who wrote the Bible had preconceived ideas of homosexuality and that is why they wrote the verses in the Bible. First of all, which came first wasn't the claim I asked you to support, you were asked to justify the use of the word "innate". Demonstrating that it's really old still falls short of that. Second religion well predates the Bible so you've failed at even the more modest task you set for yourself. Third you've got yourself a false dichotomy. Religions come up with all sorts of nonsense which I suspect you won't claim is either innate or god given. Everything from lobster-loathing to mormon underpants. Lobster loathing clearly predates Lev. or they wouldn't have been able to write it. So is god going to cast everyone into hell for eating shrimp or is hating shell fish innate to humanity? Mormons have written about mormon underpants, so is Space-Jesus the real one or are magic underpants innate to humanity? See what I mean? Shit is very prone to getting made up during the cult leaders building a religion phase. That doesn't mean what they make up is either Allah given or divinely inspired.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 9:11:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle However, there are obvious echoes of this argument to be found in several posts here. Any one advancing an argument that queer relationships are not entitled to be recognised in the same manner as straight ones is clearly insisting that queer relationships are somehow different, that queer relationships are undeserving of the full recogition afforded to straight relationships through the institution of marriage .... that queer relationships are somehow inferior or less valid than straight ones. Unless an assumption along these lines is being made, it simply doesn't make sense to argue for different statuses for straight and queer relationships. Of course there's a difference. If it didn't make any difference to people whether they had a contra-sexual partner or a same-sex partner, there wouldn't be an issue. Nor is it necessary to deny that difference in order for them to enjoy equal legal rights. Men and women enjoy equal legal rights. Why do some people find it necessary to indulge in derogatory assumptions about anyone whose opinion is at variance with their own? Personally, I am indifferent to which of the two options eventually obtains. But I'm tired of seeing sincere people, who wish gays no ill, portrayed as if they were of the same ilk as those of whom we will soon have one less. K. When allegedly "sincere people" oppose equality for queers in any sphere, they are acting with ill-will towards queers. Despite their pious claims to the contrary, opposing equality cannot be described as "wish[ing] gays no ill", it is de facto acting with ill will towards gays and queers. These people are insisting that, in relation to the right to marry, queers accept a second class status solely on account of their sexual preference. We are perfectly entitled to examine why they insist that queers accept second class status in any sphere of life. The days when queers had to accept second class status in anything have long gone and they aren't ever coming back

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 10:44:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When allegedly "sincere people" oppose equality for queers in any sphere, they are acting with ill-will towards queers. Despite their pious claims to the contrary, opposing equality cannot be described as "wish[ing] gays no ill", it is de facto acting with ill will towards gays and queers. These people are insisting that, in relation to the right to marry, queers accept a second class status solely on account of their sexual preference. We are perfectly entitled to examine why they insist that queers accept second class status in any sphere of life. The days when queers had to accept second class status in anything have long gone and they aren't ever coming back You are pushing a bogus argument, and assigning ill-will to a broad swath of people on no other basis than a claim to mind-reading. Equal legal recognition does not turn on a word. According to Pew Research the number of people who favor gay unions with full and complete equal status under the law is 31% higher than those who favor gay marriage, and that gap has remained consistent for the past decade, with the percentage of those who favor gay unions passing 50% eight years ago. It is impossible to reconcile full and complete legal recognition of gay unions with "second class status," or to plausibly argue that favoring such reflects "ill will," and it is only arguments like yours that have stood in the way of gays achieving equal recognition for their unions long ago. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 6:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When allegedly "sincere people" oppose equality for queers in any sphere, they are acting with ill-will towards queers. Despite their pious claims to the contrary, opposing equality cannot be described as "wish[ing] gays no ill", it is de facto acting with ill will towards gays and queers. These people are insisting that, in relation to the right to marry, queers accept a second class status solely on account of their sexual preference. We are perfectly entitled to examine why they insist that queers accept second class status in any sphere of life. The days when queers had to accept second class status in anything have long gone and they aren't ever coming back You are pushing a bogus argument, and assigning ill-will to a broad swath of people on no other basis than a claim to mind-reading. Equal legal recognition does not turn on a word. According to Pew Research the number of people who favor gay unions with full and complete equal status under the law is 31% higher than those who favor gay marriage, and that gap has remained consistent for the past decade, with the percentage of those who favor gay unions passing 50% eight years ago. It is impossible to reconcile full and complete legal recognition of gay unions with "second class status," or to plausibly argue that favoring such reflects "ill will," and it is only arguments like yours that have stood in the way of gays achieving equal recognition for their unions long ago. "You are pushing a bogus argument, and assigning ill-will to a broad swath of people on no other basis than a claim to mind-reading This observation is codswallop. I am examining the reasons why these people insist on assigning a second class status to queers, denying queers equality with straights in relation to marriage, and the range of social privileges associated with bona fide marriage. I am insisting that when one denies equal status under the law to a group of people with legitimate claims to that status, one is automatically acting with ill will towards that group. It has nothing to do with "mind-reading", I am simply taking their stated position at face value and analysing it. No one in their right minds would argue that, for example, denying Chinese or dark-skinned people the right to marry would not consititute ill will towards that group. Clearly it would. Why is the case of queers so different that this argument is reversed (and reversed only in relation to) queers? When I assert that those who promote the idea of civil unions as an acceptable substitute are acting with ill will, I am happy to concede that for many of those people their motivation is not malicious. They may often mean very well. But their good intentions do not in any way lessen the fact that the position they advocate is a very real denial of rights to one section of the community on the sole grounds of sexual preference Civil unions are not an acceptable alternative beause they institutionalise second class status for queers. If straight people are entitled to marry then so too are queers. No qualifications, no extra conditions, - its full equality under the law in all spheres of life. Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded.

MrBukani -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 6:15:05 PM)
Again I will stress this point. I rather call them gay, queer is a derogatory( no spellcheck) term it means odd, strange. But anyway back on top. How the hell did this end in a gaythread when it was about religion. I thought it was at least a bit of a different with possible intellectual value. My answer to the OP is this. Religion will not die because people in general fear death. Will it become unacceptable? Only when the words in books are raped and violated to meet a narrowminded view. Mind you a lot of people like the narrow and straight.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 6:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded. You're just throwing around bogus analogies, refusing to credit any views that differ from your own, and slandering everybody who dares to hold one, all in the righteous name of The Good. Fortunately this is a religion thread, where the resemblance to an inquisitorial priest flailing heretics is, if unwelcome, at least not entirely out of place. And bringing us back to the topic of this thread, it's probably evidence that religion will never die: It will simply change its robes. K.

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625