Yuku free message boards
Username or E-mail:
Password:
Forgot
Password?
Sign Up
Grab the Yuku app
Search:
RSS
Email
Jean Grey-Phoenix Fans
>
Archives (OT) 4
>
Love and (Gay) Marriage
0 Points
Search this Topic:
Remove this ad
«Prev
1
2
3
4
5
…
7
8
Next»
Jump
Forum Jump
Shades of Grey
Polls
The Astral Plane
X-Universe
The Phoenix Cafe
Archives (I)
Archives (II)
Archives (III)
Archives (IV)
Archives (V)
Archives (VI)
Archives (VII)
X-Universe (I)
Archives (OT) 1
Archives (OT) 2
Archives (OT) 3
Archives (OT) 4
Archives (OT) 5
Archives (OT) 6
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Re: Love and (Gay) Marriage
Author
Comment
Unregistered(d)
Re: Love and (Gay) Marriage
#1
[-]
Posts
: 0
Feb 9 04 1:47 AM
Reply
Quote
More
My Recent Posts
Well, we need at least one counter arguement yes?
Well these may not counter...but these are some of the things that I have heard come up as this issue has hit the forefront.
No movement should just be boiled down to one ideology. Sure there are many vocal people who feel that equating marriage to gays will be a financial burden on an already strapped for cash country; but I do believe that there are a slew of people who sincerely believe that marriage should be reserved for men and women alone...and not for financial reasonings at all.
Yes, church and state are seperated, but I don't really think it was to encourage religious diversity. It was in part to protect the government from the church...but it was also created to protect the church from government. The Pilgrims came here to practice their religion free from the edicts of the Kind and the Church of England. THey saw government as a corrupting influence. That is the same reason why many church organizations stilldon't take government money, even though it is available; they want to make sure they run their organizations their way, with their principles, and not be hampered (or tempted) by any restrictions or dependancy on government money.
It's this very complicated dance that has been done since the creation of the government. WHile various groups came here to escape persecution...this country has been anything but unconditionally tolerant to various groups; and every religious group...or most anyway...has face persecution of some sort.
It's funny that we think that the vatican controls a portion of this country, when not too long ago Xatholics were heavily persecuted in this country. Part of the reason it was a big deal that Kennedy became pres was because he was catholic (someone correct me if I'm wrong though). I mean it was a big deal Lieberman running because he was Jewish.
THe very harsh demarcation our country has between church and state was not always the case...and I would say only a fairly recent phenomenon.
Interesting aside, which I think bears note to that subject. In Italy or France (I can't remember which) there was a statue of the Virgin Mary (or was it a picture of Jesus?). Actually I think it was a cross that was hanging up in a square. Now Europe in general has grown quite liberal as far as religion goes. However, when a Muslim female said she was offended by the icon and sued to take it down, people were outraged...not necesarily because they were holy, devout Catholics. Some were pretty apathetic to it. But they did take offense to the taking down of what they felt was still a part of their culture and heritage, even if it's a vital one.
Why am I bringing this up? Because I do believe time and time again our history has shown that while we don't necesarily officially persecute, or sanction religion...we left plenty of room for its influence, and many people, being Christian were happy with that. I forgot the statistics...I studied it in a Religions in America course at college, but about 97% percent of Americans believe in a God (and that is not back then..that was in the mid 1990's). And more that 80% percent of those believe in Christianity...so to a certain extent we are a primarily Christian nation (obviously this is going to feel different n different regions).
I am the last person to say we hold on to traditions, solely or tradition's sake. But I think part of the problem with Ameircan in general is this weird type-rope type of walk they have been doing as far as religion goes. It's not really religious, but yet it is. Many of our laws and principles, or beliefs why we hold such things is based on it. We can't just turn a blind eye to it...we need to reconcile it one way or the other...being a casting off, or a fully embracing.
But this is not just a religious vs. non-religious debate, because there are many people who are not, say practicing Christians, generally agnostic, or pretty indifferent to religion who still feel that marriage is between a man and woman...the conservative right just talks the loudest...as usual.
I think gay people can get married, and I just read an article recently that said gays have been getting married for a while now (at least a couple of decades if not longer). THe government just doesn't recognize it...nor do various churches. So to a certain extent, this fight is economical on both sides.
I do believe that marriage partners recieves tons of benefits, but I believe part of those benfits derived from justbeing married to begin with (like sharing rent/utilities...having someone who ideally loves you forever, and is looking out for your best interest). I don't know perse if they have many benefits that. THe benefit that they have of putting the spouse on their insurance is given by many private companies...including the one I work for. And many husbands and wives are both out of luck as far as insurance goes when it comes to those who work in smaller comapnies and can't afford it.
True, they don't get social security. Then again, I forgot how they calculate it...dang I wished I remember! But many women who work part time end up not gettng any of their husbands social security. Also, through a loop hole, many federal workers don't receive their spouses social security either. With a will, all inheritance issues are a done deal, no matter what the circumstances...unless it is contested outright by say, the kids. But I can't imagine them winning.
I asked my friend if she felt like she received more benefits being married, and she said no. She felt the only time married couples really get benefits is when they have children. But single mothers, because they have children also benefit tax wise (they just have a crap load of other issues to deal with!). And children is almost like another entity altogether.
Gays still have issues about is visitation rights and such. And when I mean issues, I mean is without a living will, or medical declarative, unfortunately nurses and doctors have banned gay lovers from seeing either their kids or their partners.
One other thing since I've thought about it. Often this is compared to the many strides of Afams. But they seem to start from two very different trajectories, so I don't know if the results will be the same. Barring one article I read recently, many of the articles I have read advocate gay marriage, and gay rights by eschewing that which is religious. There have been some theologians who question the various passages that point to the problem, but many say we should just sort of abandone it, or not hold religion as sacred.
In the civil rights movement, they wanted equality and freedom precisely becasue of religion. The evangelical church has been a major source of strength for the afam community, from their tiems of worship on the plantations, to the civil right s leaders of the 60's. It wasfar easier to use a person who you thought was a 3/5's heathen sinner, than it was to use a 3/5's child of god.
Much of the slaves passion for freedom, and the strength to endure came directly from Christianity, since much of their indigenous beliefs were erased. Many of the old hyms & spirituals that have stayed around attest to this. Things kind of strained a bit as all the slaves were being shown the gospel. Fast forward to 20th century. Some of the most disturbing bits of prejudice (for some) were things that could also be seen as infractions against the church (form the little girls who died, but moreover who died ina church to the burning of crosses, quite symbolic). MLK borrowed ideologies from many avenues (like Ghandi), but much of it was laced or evoced Christian beliefs.
Shew, my brian hurts trying to remember all this stuff! I am too old!
But seriously. Perhaps the bet for this thing to pass is for people like Nickx to come to the forefront; someone who is gay, but who is also very connected to his faith...specifically Chritsian faith (if I am remembering his little link at the bottom of his sigs correctly).
Or much like anything else, there is always time. Various polls have shown that the people with the most ardent anti gay-marriage postures are older people. The younger the audience skews, the more tolerant and accepting of gay marriage they become, on a whole.
Now before you start throwing eggs, may I add that what doesn't kill your arguement makes it stronger!
thanks,
dini
p.s. - I definitely agree with FR. This is a fight that will go all the way up to the suprem court, most likely. THere really isn't a way one can be married in one state, but not married at all in another. THere will eiether be an ammendment against or for gay marriage. But I do think this one is a fed issue.
"Look at the stars, look how they shine for you, and everything you do. Yeah, they were all yellow. I came along, I wrote a song for you, and all the things you do, and it was called Yellow." - Coldplay
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Forum Jump
Shades of Grey
Polls
The Astral Plane
X-Universe
The Phoenix Cafe
Archives (I)
Archives (II)
Archives (III)
Archives (IV)
Archives (V)
Archives (VI)
Archives (VII)
X-Universe (I)
Archives (OT) 1
Archives (OT) 2
Archives (OT) 3
Archives (OT) 4
Archives (OT) 5
Archives (OT) 6
Share This
Email to Friend
del.icio.us
Digg it
Facebook
Blogger
Yahoo MyWeb
«Prev
1
2
3
4
5
…
7
8
Next»
Jump
Jean Grey-Phoenix Fans
>
Archives (OT) 4
>
Love and (Gay) Marriage
Click to subscribe by RSS
Click to receive E-mail notifications of replies