csberry

Yanno... I'm religious, I'm torn on the issue, but I don't think referring to religious people (apparently in general definition) as bigots is the best way to plead your case...or to exemplify open-mindedness that many of the other side I suppose you'd call it, claim to embrace.

From:

I just copy/pasted the whole thing from elsewhere. I agree that "bigot" is being used in too general of a statement. There are bigots that want to "protect" marriage, but not everyone "protecting" marriage is a bigot. I've changed the wording on my post.

From:

Thanks.

From:

Still...I think that these folks have the conviction of their beliefs. They are good, decent people who don't think like you do. (I use the collective you, not the specific)
I don't believe that it is bigotry to cling to one's religious beliefs. Their taking a stand against something they believe is wrong does not make them bigots. Especially in light of the fact that they're being insulted and called names because of it.

It's just not the same as burning a cross in someone's yard or refusing to hire them based on their race.

From:

There are certainly good, decent people who have principles which make them ethically against extending marriage to homosexuals. Those people ARE NOT bigots. Most of the time, I enjoy conversations and debates with these folks. As they pray that God guides me to their way of thinking, I hope they will have a personal experience like those that helped to guide my opinions on the matter.

I have NO PROBLEMS with the people I discuss above.

However, there are plenty of people that are motivated by hate and prejudice against homosexuals/homosexuality. People who think it is fine to bully, harass, and denigrate others because of their sexuality. People who vilify others because of the single trait of sexual orientation. People who are convinced that gays are waiting in shadows to rape innocent boys or helpless men.

No matter of logic will change these people's opinions. Merriam-Webster defines bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." That definition goes for the gay-bashers and the Christian-haters. No side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on bigots.

From:

Like those vile hatemongers who have made it their personal mission to worsen the suffering of those who have lost loved ones in accidents, but showing up and telling the bereaved that their loved ones died because America doesn't hate gay people.

I understand. And we are closer to agreement on the matter than I had believed.

It's always easy to take a stand on one issue or the other until you know someone who is close to that issue. A number of years ago I would have taken a black and white view on the issue of gay marriage...now not so much. I know a very loving gay couple, who have married in as much as the law permits here in Alabama. That is they had a ceremony and are bonded.

So it's not a black and white issue for me nowadays as it might have once been. I also think that couples like my friends should have the protections and rights that many married couples enjoy. I hadn't fully understood what they go through until I saw an HBO special... I can't recall the name, but it addressed what happened to an aged monogamous lesbian couple when one of the partners died and the will did not provide for the surviving spouse.

Anyway... therin is a small part of my view on the issue.

Thank you for responding.

From:

I'm sorry you view marriage as just a social contract.

From:

...but when talking about the marriage certificate that the govt gives out...yes, that is a social contract.

Any Joe the Groom and Jane the Bride can go to a govt office and declare themselves married. They can barely stand each other but for some reason they decided to get hitched. The govt doesn't discriminate against couples with little to no interest in maintaining their marriage "until death does us part" and does nothing to maintain anything sacred about the marriage application process and certificate. Why pretend what the govt does is sacred?

Does govt required fluoridation of water make baptism any less holy? No. Believers hold baptism as sacred even if the water is taken from a squalid pond because the priest/minister asks God to bless that water and make it holy. Just because the govt deems certain water safe and certain water unsafe doesn't make baptism with unfiltered water less sacred.

Marriage in the church is something that hopefully involves counseling with church members and the pastor. It is a spiritual bond between two people. In many churches, the congregation pledges to do what it can as a community to help the new couple in their marriage. Getting married in the church is a spiritual commitment between the two in front and the community gathered at the wedding. If your religious views don't include same sex couples getting married, that is fine for you and your religion.

But placing one religious point of view (man and woman only) over another religious point of view (God wants loving couples to be in lifetime commitments) IS NOT something the govt should involve itself.

From:

"But placing one religious point of view (man and woman only) over another religious point of view (God wants loving couples to be in lifetime commitments) IS NOT something the govt should involve itself."

Ding Ding, you win. I guess it means I'm not totally insane to see it that way.

I want the state out of other people's religion as much as I want other people's religion out of the state. The whole 'separation of' clause was ingenious, it was for the defense and protection of both from mostly good and decent people that would be blinded by some ideology.

Oh oh Mr Berry, we agree on something, call the cops!

From:

Ok, I see what you mean, but the government is not a nebulous church-free entity. The Church is not a nebulous human-free entity. We have a representative government made up of humans like us. As I wrote below, you cannot separate the Christian from the legislator if the legislator is Christian. And of course if people who work for the Church have to be governed by the same laws as everyone else, they will take an interest in those laws. And if they have a pulpit to preach from and a congregation to influence, they will. Given the opportunity to share their opinions, humans will do just that. That is why religious groups lobby, not the fact that "The Church" is trying to interfere with "Government"al processes.

From:

you cannot separate the Christian from the legislator if the legislator is Christian

True, but not all Christians believe that marriage is ONLY between man and woman. One group of Christians should not deprive another group of Christians (or whomever) the governmental right they believe is theirs - especially in instances where the majority vote for that right to be recognized. It is not the govt's role to dictate who's beliefs are more righteous, it is to enforce the laws it has and the voters enact.

Religion, philosophy, personal experience, or brainwashing: citizens and representatives alike bring all of this into their political actions. I just believe that when legitimate govt decision is made, the Bible has no role in the govt as a source of veto. Override gay marriage proposals in the ballot box...not on the bench or as a govt employee refusing to accept the change in law/policy and citing the Bible and "tradition" as the justification.

From:

In the eyes of the law it should ONLY be a civil contract. Do you want the state telling you that regardless of your personal religious/spiritual beliefs, your marriage has no standing until 'approved'? I assume no, but then you have no trouble with the same state taking a religious ceremony and debasing it into just that, a civil contract that steals a religious ceremony's name.

To somehow think that a piece of paper and an official seal legitimize your marriage before you, your partner, and your particular god or gods sells your definition of marriage short. As if your love and commitment aren't good enough to sanctify your joining before your god, no, you need a stamp to make it official.

People like me that think all couples deserve to enjoy the same blessings of liberty want the church out of the civil aspect, and want the state to butt out of the spiritual aspect.

Our founders were wise beyond their time. They knew that to keep religion free and personal, and the state even handed, they had to protect each from the other. Too many times we miss that because it gets into the way of things we want, but the insulating layer of the 1st amendment is the greatest of all protections for freedom. Perhaps we miss it because we have never been a country that forces you to a particular faith or forbids you from any faith. We can't fully appreciate it because we don't have to fear, as we have always had the right to choose for ourselves. Why ruin that because you don't like a person having the same rights that you already enjoy?

From:

Ah, separation of church and state. This is impossible. Those of us raised as Christian cannot suddenly remove our moral compasses instilled in us by our religious background just because we are dealing with a "government/state" issue. I'm pretty sure there are Christian senators and representatives, and there probably always will be given the number of seats available.

I think the key in this issue is that the civil contract has stolen the religious ceremony's name. It is true, there are plenty of people who are not married in the Church, but why is this marriage? Because that's what we're used to calling it?

For me it's not about sharing rights, it's about self-control, heterosexual and homosexual alike.

From:

I think the key in this issue is that the civil contract has stolen the religious ceremony's name.

Semantics is probably half of the fight (the other half being the icky feeling folks get when they think about gay sex). While there are pockets across the States where the majority believe that gay marriage is fine, what you find more in the polls is that a majority are satisfied with a semantic change. Nationally, if poll asks about gay marriage, the majority is against it. BUT if the poll asks about civil unions (and specify the same legal rights would apply), the majority is in favor of it.

In my mind, we're either heading for a "separate, but equal" phase of govt acceptance of civil unions or this is going to be fought until the full rights and name of marriage is granted to the gay community. The number of folks against a constitutional ban on gay marriage rises each year, so I'm doubtful for a pendulum swing back in that direction anytime soon.

From:

I would think most American would support taking the religion term 'marriage' out of the scope of government. But then again, if people think just using the word 'marriage' to describe a union between two people they don't like is somehow an attack on marriage, we might have a group that will have to be forced as the south was during the civil rights movement.

I just don't understand people that favor denying equal rights to another. It just feels wrong to me and i wonder why it doesn't to them.

From:

'Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.'.

So, as I am reading your comments, you do support a national religion that would enforce your particular version of a god and that particular god's moral code?

Your comment on self control is ambiguous to me. Could you clarify it? I'm not sure if you are saying what it appears to me, that people are only allow others rights based on their behavior. Are you saying that because your religion says homosexuality is wrong, that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights under the law as you, providing you follow your particular religion's view on morality?

I'm sincerely trying to see your point, if for nothing else to get an insight as to where you are coming from. If I come off as purely argumentative or condescending, I apologize in advance.

From: