I'm back... Again.
Quit Brawl for SFIV. (Sorry).
But, I still will be participating in the LBGT Thread.
The last subject we were on was not an area I was familiar with so, that also contributed to my absence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gay Marriage.
The thing about Marriage is that it is no longer a religious themed ritual. Even though, the churches claim marriage to be a sacred event, held witness by God, Marriage is just not only religious, it is an icon of independence and devotion.
The thing about Civil Unions is that all it does is undermine the meaning of marriage. What the States are doing by not allowing Gays to marry is telling them in a nice way, "Yeah, You MIGHT be able to be devoted buuuut, since your Gay...".
The Church is just trying to undermine, and this is not acceptable, morally or legally. We must follow all of the consitution that every man is free, and has the right to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Of course there are more, but this is the main aspects. It really is the fact of the undermining that pisses me off.
There's a few minor issues I'd like to point out, more in the clarification sense then anything else because I'm pro-legal gay marriage.
Firstly, there actually is a religious idea that secular marriage is inherently wrong, since it's "supposed to be" a solely religious institution. Therefore by that reasoning, any state marriage that amounts to something that disagrees with their religious ideals is wrong because religion defines marriage. The thing that they're missing is that it doesn't touch the point of other religions, but I actually have a fair amount of sympathy for that view.
Why? Because the natural progression is that the state should not interfere with marriage period. No marriage licenses, no limits on who can marry, no nothing. The functions that marriage legally performs can be done through other mechanisms and marriage itself can legally be reduced to a contract between two (or more, but that's a separate debate) people.
Secondly, this always annoys me, it's not "the Church", it's "a number of religious organizations". "The Church" refers to Latin rite Catholicism, which while it opposes gay marriage officially, is far from the only religious group that does so. To say "the Church" in this context makes it seem like Catholicism is the only group that opposes gay marriage. It's a linguistic tic that contributes to anti-Catholic bias (namely to say things done by Christian groups are done by "the Church"), let's spread the "love" evenly in where it belongs ok?
in Regards to allowing Civil Unions;
Its not fair. For me the real issue with marriage vs. civil unions is the idea of them being separate but equal. We all know what that means... They aren't legally equivalent, which is what we want, no?
Actually, it depends on how they're legally defined.
If they're legally defined as "marriage" (in other words, the laws on civil unions are basically a redirect to the marriage laws in whole), then it doesn't matter. People will call it marriage and the legal distinction will vanish from our language.
Just only certain denominations will perform them.
That said, anything less falls into the "Separate but Equal" issue, but remember, the Brown V. Board of Ed. decision DOES require demonstrable harm to apply.
It didn't overturn Plessy, it established a standard by which assertions that something is "Separate but Equal" may be challenged, and then established that the criteria had been met for education.