What's with those right wing, socially conservative, fanatacilly religous... LGBT?

[HarlotMinx]

I was wondering today if anyone else has run into or really talked with gays, lesbians, etc individuals/couple (specifically couples) who seem to be extremely socially conservative and I don't mean on fiscal policies or immigration law but on LGBT politics.

I know so many openly gay or lesbian couples who are also openly catholic, baptist, and some of the more conservative evangelical groups. I interacted with a lesbian couple recently who were Catholics, card carrying republicans, and opponents of gay marriage. I'm just sort of having trouble understanding how someone would be a member of a group or cause that intentionally tries to discriminate against them? It's like watching a black American fighting for segregation and restriction on black businesses.

Thing is, this is not the first time I've run into these type of people and in none of the cases I've run into were they closeted about their homosexuality nor did they feel it personally was sinful, they seemed to rationalize it in some way. I mean, I understand that not all republicans are opponents of gay marriage, a few 'log cabin' republicans come to mind. But I think the catholic church has made it's stance fairly clear as have many baptists and southern baptists so I kind of end up stumped when I see gays and lesbians who strongly feel things like gay marriage has no place in our society yet what they do at home is perfectly acceptable.

Anyone care to shine a bit of light on it... beyond he "they're deluded about their own sexuality" argument?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Dave Brock's book is great on this.

 

[HarlotMinx]

Dave Brock's book is great on this.

You know it's funny you mention him. I was just thinking about Dave Brock last month. I listen to a lot of pretty right wing radio when I'm driving. Half because I can't find any comedy stations that appeal to me and half because I like to hear the accusations and arguments from the source before they really hit the fan and end up on everyone's mouths. I was remembering listening to the Don Kroah show (extremely funny man if you take his arguments for what they are) and they were talking about how unconstitutional it was for DC to deny the right of referendum and how it's unprecedented. One of his liberal callers reminded him that in fact interracial marriage wasn't put on referendum in Virginia. Kroah's only response was how dare that man compare the morality of interracial marriage to gay marriage. The arguments of the right always fascinates me because I can never quite follow the logical track of how you get from A to B to C to bestial necrophilia.

But I digress, I'm not sure how Brock's book relates to the topic but I'll order it right away, were you referring to the Blinded by the Right or The Republican Noise Machine? I'm assuming you aren't referring to his earlier works....

 

[none2_none2]

....

I know so many openly gay or lesbian couples who are also openly catholic, baptist, and some of the more conservative evangelical groups. ...

I have no idea where you are coming from. Do you agree with how the US has treated gay people? If not, then why haven't you moved to somewhere like a liberal European country. If you have relatives who don't relate to your life's choices, to you "divorce them"?

Personally, I don't relate to the overwhelming majority of gays in many ways.

For one thing, the whole genetic crap is irrelevant. I don't need some genetic excuse for anybody's approval of my life's choices. The whole think reeks of an apologetic approach to acceptance.

Second, I agree with the concept of equal rights are just that -- not special rights. Some gays agree with that, others simply give it lip service. I want the right to marry because if I play by THEIR (straight world) rules ( fidelity), I deserve the same options. If straights against gay marriage want to throw in making babies, then they need to change their rules to exclude all that cannot or will not have kids. Many gays argue this from a "love" perspective. I see that as the social angle of marriage which is best handled by whatever your world view is. The legal part of marriage simply shows by the rules the government has, they are denying gays the right to marry soley because of sex discrimination.

My point here is isn't to argue politics but to simply point out that why should anybody expect someone else to think like they do just because they have a few things in common? So what if I typically attend a church that doesn't embrace homosexuality. Will they ever change if NO one who is gay darted in their doors? Personally, I think it is kind of cool to think that when I die those that knew of me in the church might wonder what the big fuss was. Especially, since they should never know as it is none of their business. I never brought it up. I never raped any of their children nor tried to recruit anybody to convert to the "dark side". So maybe because of my actions (or inactions) they'll think differently about homosexuality someday.

Also realize that there is the concept of the cafeteria. You go through the line and pay for what you WANT to eat. You leave the stuff you don't like alone for someone else to pay for. If I don't like corn bread, I don't have to put in on my plate nor pay for it... The same applies to church doctrine.

Sure there are times I get pretty pissed at things. For instance, some really don't know just how close to stepping over the line the churches were in the election between Bush and Kerry. They all but DID state that voting for Kerry was a sin because of his stands on abortion & homosexuality. That was the closest I ever came to actually just leaving. However, I realized that if I quit everytime things didn't go my way, I'd never belong to anything. So I stayed.

Now there are times that I think some gays are WAY too tolerant. I have NO understanding about Mary Chaney, for example. However, that isn't about religion, that is about power. I would never support a candidate whether they were of the same race, religion, or even family if they openly pushed for a constitutional amendment to codify discrimination against my own group -- or or that matter any group. In addition to Mary Chaney, I think of the son of Phyllis Shafley. She was the lady against the equal rights amendment for women. She also got on the subject of homosexuality. Thus her son, John, was outed. How he can be gay and defend his powerful mother and brother is beyond me. That goes too far.



.

 

[Netzach]

You can understand staying in a hostile religious environment and even paying for the hostility with every pass of the collection plate, but not standing by your own blood relatives, even if they're psychotic?

 

[Netzach]

I was wondering today if anyone else has run into or really talked with gays, lesbians, etc individuals/couple (specifically couples) who seem to be extremely socially conservative and I don't mean on fiscal policies or immigration law but on LGBT politics.

I know so many openly gay or lesbian couples who are also openly catholic, baptist, and some of the more conservative evangelical groups. I interacted with a lesbian couple recently who were Catholics, card carrying republicans, and opponents of gay marriage. I'm just sort of having trouble understanding how someone would be a member of a group or cause that intentionally tries to discriminate against them? It's like watching a black American fighting for segregation and restriction on black businesses.

Thing is, this is not the first time I've run into these type of people and in none of the cases I've run into were they closeted about their homosexuality nor did they feel it personally was sinful, they seemed to rationalize it in some way. I mean, I understand that not all republicans are opponents of gay marriage, a few 'log cabin' republicans come to mind. But I think the catholic church has made it's stance fairly clear as have many baptists and southern baptists so I kind of end up stumped when I see gays and lesbians who strongly feel things like gay marriage has no place in our society yet what they do at home is perfectly acceptable.

Anyone care to shine a bit of light on it... beyond he "they're deluded about their own sexuality" argument?

IME, most of these people are or *think* they are well off, have theirs, and believe that poor people should be punished and discarded by society. So much so that they'll pretty much do anything to stay close to their own sense of privilege and alignment with pro-biz, anti social welfare interests.

It's basically boils down to the hardest core most dyed in the wool fiscal conservatism that you can imagine. If fiscal conservatism (and I hesitate to even call it that) is your political true north, I can see how you could divorce your sexuality as "relevant" or "important" in political life.

 

[HarlotMinx]

It's basically boils down to the hardest core most dyed in the wool fiscal conservatism that you can imagine. If fiscal conservatism (and I hesitate to even call it that) is your political true north, I can see how you could divorce your sexuality as "relevant" or "important" in political life.

Yes but I'm not talking about fiscally conservative gays, I'm talking about socially conservative gays who are open about their homosexuality, can justify it... and then feel gays have no right to adopt, marry, or any type of protections. Hell I'm a pretty fiscally conservative lesbian... doesn't mean I'm going to go supporting Don't ask don't tell and try and vote for prop 8. I guess that's what is bugging me, I can see separating your sexuality from your politics but not when your politics are specifically to oppress your sexuality.... well I can see that but not WHILE they're accepting of being gay at the same time.


To none2_none2.... I'm a tad confused by what the aim of your post was... maybe I'm missing your tone or something but either you're way missing the point of my post or I'm missing some point of yours. I'll try to dissect.

I have no idea where you are coming from.

From the position of someone who is LGBT looking at other LGBT individuals who feel they want to further a movement to oppress LGBT individuals.

Do you agree with how the US has treated gay people? If not, then why haven't you moved to somewhere like a liberal European country. If you have relatives who don't relate to your life's choices, to you "divorce them"?

Well... no I don't agree at all with the US's historical practices and relations with the queer community. I'm not moving to a more liberal part of the world because I actually rather like living in the United States. The fact that I have issues with some social views just means that I should fight to see change not leave the country or relatives..... this whole section of your post confuses the hell out of me.

Personally, I don't relate to the overwhelming majority of gays in many ways.

That's fine, a overwhelming majority of gays don't relate to each other in many ways.

For one thing, the whole genetic crap is irrelevant. I don't need some genetic excuse for anybody's approval of my life's choices. The whole think reeks of an apologetic approach to acceptance.

I don't think it's irrelevant, in fact in the past few years the idea of gay behaviors being passed on through genetic traits has been pretty much specifically used to combat the idea that being gay is a treatable mental disorder. Their is actually a decent amount of research on the topic and even more evidence to support the theory. I don't think anyone is using it as a apology but more as a vindication against some idea of 'treating' homosexuality.

Second, I agree with the concept of equal rights are just that -- not special rights. Some gays agree with that, others simply give it lip service. I want the right to marry because if I play by THEIR (straight world) rules ( fidelity), I deserve the same options. If straights against gay marriage want to throw in making babies, then they need to change their rules to exclude all that cannot or will not have kids. Many gays argue this from a "love" perspective. I see that as the social angle of marriage which is best handled by whatever your world view is. The legal part of marriage simply shows by the rules the government has, they are denying gays the right to marry soley because of sex discrimination.

Er, I think most homosexuals are arguing for gay marriage on the basis of equal rights under the constitution and equal legal protections... and I'm not sure sex discrimination is a accurate explanation of why the government isn't legalizing gay marriage. They aren't discriminating on gays/lesbians on the basis of their sex so much as on it's face it's a argument about the definition of "marriage" and behind that is a lot of social stigma about the acceptability of same sex relations. So far I think all the legal arguments have been about the definition of marriage though. I might be wrong but I have trouble finding any other legal argument germane to the topic.

My point here is isn't to argue politics but to simply point out that why should anybody expect someone else to think like they do just because they have a few things in common? So what if I typically attend a church that doesn't embrace homosexuality. Will they ever change if NO one who is gay darted in their doors? Personally, I think it is kind of cool to think that when I die those that knew of me in the church might wonder what the big fuss was. Especially, since they should never know as it is none of their business. I never brought it up. I never raped any of their children nor tried to recruit anybody to convert to the "dark side". So maybe because of my actions (or inactions) they'll think differently about homosexuality someday.

My point isn't that I expect them to share my beliefs based on sexuality or even that they should have any particular belief set; my point is that why would someone hold political beliefs directly contradictory to some facet of themselves. I have no issue with people going to Catholic church, hell I drive my aunt to Catholic church once a month but I don't go around donating money to get them to fight DC's gay marriage vote. I'm specifically talking about people who are out fighting gay rights and in the same swoop in a gay relationship.

Also realize that there is the concept of the cafeteria. You go through the line and pay for what you WANT to eat. You leave the stuff you don't like alone for someone else to pay for. If I don't like corn bread, I don't have to put in on my plate nor pay for it... The same applies to church doctrine.

Think of it like this, you're lactose intolerant and purposefully going out and buying the pizza. Not talking about people picking and choosing here.

Now there are times that I think some gays are WAY too tolerant. I have NO understanding about Mary Chaney, for example. However, that isn't about religion, that is about power. I would never support a candidate whether they were of the same race, religion, or even family if they openly pushed for a constitutional amendment to codify discrimination against my own group -- or or that matter any group. In addition to Mary Chaney, I think of the son of Phyllis Shafley. She was the lady against the equal rights amendment for women. She also got on the subject of homosexuality. Thus her son, John, was outed. How he can be gay and defend his powerful mother and brother is beyond me. That goes too far.

Yes but I refer to people who would vote for those candidates.

 

[John Doe]

I don't think it's irrelevant, in fact in the past few years the idea of gay behaviors being passed on through genetic traits has been pretty much specifically used to combat the idea that being gay is a treatable mental disorder. Their is actually a decent amount of research on the topic and even more evidence to support the theory. I don't think anyone is using it as a apology but more as a vindication against some idea of 'treating' homosexuality.

He has a point though. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

It's irrelevant because whether it's a choice or not has no bearing on the fact that all citizens should have equal rights. It's like debating whether or not torture is effective before one has even discussed (much less decided) whether one is willing to do it in the first place.

Moreover, I think the people who believe that homosexuality is a disease that can be "cured" (at least for the most part) will never be convinced otherwise. They should be ignored unless and until they show signs of impending violence.

 

[John Doe]

I'm surprised that I overlooked something in the OP since it's something I usually get hung up on...I just don't fathom this: gay Catholic. I can't even form a decent question for it.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I'm surprised that I overlooked something in the OP since it's something I usually get hung up on...I just don't fathom this: gay Catholic. I can't even form a decent question for it.

I've asked that very question of every one of them. The answer I get is "They were raised catholic and always have been, they don't agree with the churches view but it's their religion and they can't abandon it."

 

[newman9800]

I have no idea where you are coming from. Do you agree with how the US has treated gay people? If not, then why haven't you moved to somewhere like a liberal European country. If you have relatives who don't relate to your life's choices to you.
___________________________________________________________
Credit Card Debt
Remortgage Deals

 

[HarlotMinx]

I have no idea where you are coming from. Do you agree with how the US has treated gay people? If not, then why haven't you moved to somewhere like a liberal European country. If you have relatives who don't relate to your life's choices to you.
___________________________________________________________
Credit Card Debt
Remortgage Deals

Are we parroting now?

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Are we parroting now?

No. He/she/it is spamboting.

 

[slimtrimfem1]

New boss same as the old boss

I was wondering today if anyone else has run into or really talked with gays, lesbians, etc individuals/couple (specifically couples) who seem to be extremely socially conservative and I don't mean on fiscal policies or immigration law but on LGBT politics.

I know so many openly gay or lesbian couples who are also openly catholic, baptist, and some of the more conservative evangelical groups. I interacted with a lesbian couple recently who were Catholics, card carrying republicans, and opponents of gay marriage. I'm just sort of having trouble understanding how someone would be a member of a group or cause that intentionally tries to discriminate against them? It's like watching a black American fighting for segregation and restriction on black businesses.

Thing is, this is not the first time I've run into these type of people and in none of the cases I've run into were they closeted about their homosexuality nor did they feel it personally was sinful, they seemed to rationalize it in some way. I mean, I understand that not all republicans are opponents of gay marriage, a few 'log cabin' republicans come to mind. But I think the catholic church has made it's stance fairly clear as have many baptists and southern baptists so I kind of end up stumped when I see gays and lesbians who strongly feel things like gay marriage has no place in our society yet what they do at home is perfectly acceptable.

Anyone care to shine a bit of light on it... beyond he "they're deluded about their own sexuality" argument?

The Harlotminx post shows how just about everyone's intolerance has the same strength as everyone else's intolerance. Gay or straight. Minx uses terms like 'extremely socially conservative', and 'card carrying republicans', 'these type of people', 'they seemed to rationalize it in some way'...

Because 'these type of people' did not eagerly and instantly believe in what Minx believes, those people become a different type of people. Minx turns this into a 'us against them'. A power struggle.

If a religion that has existed for 2,000 years, or for 4,000 years, does not obey Minx's orders, then that religion 'intentionally tries to discriminate against them'? Does Minx wants religion to do everything that anyone demands? Apart from Islam, does any religion force you to join? To obey it? Hello?

Minx writes about the Catholic church, Baptists and Southern Baptists. Somehow she forgot about the other religions that for thousands of years never had gay marriage. What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, and many other religions? Why does Minx think that GLBT politics should now rule all religions? Does Minx want all religions to perform gay marriages? To only recognize civil gay marriage? Will Minx next force gay priests, gay rabbis, gay Popes, etc., into each religion? Each church? Each temple?

Minx: tell us what all religions are allowed to think, to do and not do. Hello? Hello?

Somehow, and not too cleverly, Minx drags in the 'It's like watching a black American fighting for segregation and restriction on black businesses' argument. Oh really? That is pathetic, and so weak. It is so lame to compare blacks being oppressed to gay marriage. In fact, it is an insult. If you cannot make your case on the facts of your case, don't drag in something else and claim your pet project is the same as black oppression.

BTW: Does Minx know about the various Black Muslim groups? Some of which want segregation? Some of whom want a separate black nation in the U.S.? And black only stores/businesses? Hello? Hello?

I have to laugh at gays and lesbians who want their private gay-only and or lesbian-only groups, clubs, schools, culture, businesses, etc., but who are fanatic about 'busting up' anything that doesn't cater to GLBT politics.

Minx, if you really cannot understand what many of us gays and lesbian think and feel, then don't 'interact' with us, as you put it. Try actually talking and LISTENING. Try to understand.

 

[al_Ussa]

I... honestly don't know. Can't say I've known more than a few openly gay people in my entire life and far fewer conservative Christians.

If I had to guess either they are trying to "stop being gay" through adopting some sort of hardline religious ideology, or they were raised in said religion and don't think that they can convert (or won't for family reasons). I've got no idea really.

But then I'm a Republican-leaning straight American Muslim who believes that gay marriage should be legal and supports individual and State rights. What would I know?

Because 'these type of people' did not eagerly and instantly believe in what Minx believes, those people become a different type of people. Minx turns this into a 'us against them'. A power struggle.

Except of course that religious social groups like those DO want to impose their power on the rest of us Americans.

If a religion that has existed for 2,000 years, or for 4,000 years, does not obey Minx's orders, then that religion 'intentionally tries to discriminate against them'?

The Aztecs and their forebears went for centuries practicing human sacrifice. Hinduism (which is one of the world's oldest religions; far predating Christianity and Judaism) continues to force widows to commit suicide up into the present. Many African religions include both female and male circumcision. I'm not sure "tradition" is the best excuse.

Apart from Islam, does any religion force you to join? To obey it? Hello?

Islam does not force conversions.

And by the way your evangelical buddies are big on trying to change MY country!

 

[HarlotMinx]

slimtrimfem1, you're waaaay off on your interpretation

The Harlotminx post shows how just about everyone's intolerance has the same strength as everyone else's intolerance. Gay or straight. Minx uses terms like 'extremely socially conservative', and 'card carrying republicans', 'these type of people', 'they seemed to rationalize it in some way'...

Because 'these type of people' did not eagerly and instantly believe in what Minx believes, those people become a different type of people. Minx turns this into a 'us against them'. A power struggle.

Um.... well first off none of those quotes show any form of intolerance.... recognizing someone has a difference in opinion isn't a show of intolerance by any stretch. The people I'm talking about were self identified social conservatives, by mentioning that I designate what political area they fit into, I'd just as soon use the term "extremely socially liberal" or "card carrying democrat to talk about someone in the far left. I'm not showing a intolerance, far from it I'm asking how someone can justify having a socially liberal identity and claim to be socially conservative on the same topic. Being intolerant would be calling them idiots or saying they're lying to themselves, instead I asked for a explanation to their motives... which would be me tolerantly trying to understand a view point. *cough*

If a religion that has existed for 2,000 years, or for 4,000 years, does not obey Minx's orders, then that religion 'intentionally tries to discriminate against them'? Does Minx wants religion to do everything that anyone demands? Apart from Islam, does any religion force you to join? To obey it? Hello?

Actually besides not being the point of my post at all, is also incorrect. Islam does not teach about forcing people to join, in fact traditionally Islam was very accepting of Christianity and Judaism up until about 1979. The current groups like the Taliban do not represent Islam as a religion any more than the Chinese government represents the beliefs of it's people. But that aside, I have no problem with a religion that's anti gay, anti racial equality, or anti feminist. Good for them, exercise their freedom of speech if they like as long as they aren't breaking laws in the name of their cause. I don't necessarily condemn a social group based on if I have difference of belief but my point is, why would a black individual join a anti racial equality group? Why would a gay man join a anti gay organization?

Minx writes about the Catholic church, Baptists and Southern Baptists. Somehow she forgot about the other religions that for thousands of years never had gay marriage. What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, and many other religions? Why does Minx think that GLBT politics should now rule all religions? Does Minx want all religions to perform gay marriages? To only recognize civil gay marriage? Will Minx next force gay priests, gay rabbis, gay Popes, etc., into each religion? Each church? Each temple?

Um.... again I have no idea what this has to do with ANYTHING i said, not only does it not reflect my views it's not in any way related to my point. In fact I don't think any religion at all should be forced to marry same sex couples, it goes against the first amendment of the constitution. I do believe that with the government should allow legal marriages on the basis that the government is a entity separate from religion (in theory) and thus can not hold sway to any particular religions beliefs.... or at least I don't feel moral arguments are applicable to the debate, certainly not religiously based ones. But just because their is legal same sex marriage doesn't mean ANY church should have to religiously marry a couple, that's silly. Fyi, Judaism and Buddhism DO marry same sex couples and Islam will marry transexuals.

Minx: tell us what all religions are allowed to think, to do and not do. Hello? Hello?

Whatever their religious doctrine holds true, thanks for asking.

Somehow, and not too cleverly, Minx drags in the 'It's like watching a black American fighting for segregation and restriction on black businesses' argument. Oh really? That is pathetic, and so weak. It is so lame to compare blacks being oppressed to gay marriage. In fact, it is an insult. If you cannot make your case on the facts of your case, don't drag in something else and claim your pet project is the same as black oppression.

How is it lame? I've heard a lot of conservative groups say that the two are unrelated in any way and it's a insult to compare them but nobody has explained why. First off, both gay marriage and interracial marriage are being forced through without referendum or possibly on a federal level despite both being apposed by the exact same social groups. They went through similar legal battles and both were condemned for similar religious reasons and social reasons. In fact the arguments made against interracial marriage were that god had not intended for the colors to mix (Judge Leon Bazile's words from the Loving V. Virginia case, not mine) and how could a interracial families raise children, they'd be confused about their color and have to deal with being made fun of as children. So, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck then why exactly is it not a duck? The comparison seems fairly strong to me. Seriously, I'd love an answer to this because I've never heard a single person explain why it's a "insult" to compare them. Oh and by the way Mildred Loving, the woman in the landmark case for interracial marriage, was a life long supporter of gay marriage up until her death and she felt the two were comparable.

BTW: Does Minx know about the various Black Muslim groups? Some of which want segregation? Some of whom want a separate black nation in the U.S.? And black only stores/businesses? Hello? Hello?

Actually that's a different topic. Mine was about someone of a certain identity joining a social group that disproves of that identity for the purpose of discriminating against others like them. I'm not talking about gays who want to create a separate gay state and allow only gay business owners. But, I'm not overtly worried about that example, anti segregation laws apply both ways.

I have to laugh at gays and lesbians who want their private gay-only and or lesbian-only groups, clubs, schools, culture, businesses, etc., but who are fanatic about 'busting up' anything that doesn't cater to GLBT politics.

Actually I've never seen a gay or lesbian only group in any of the schools, they make a big point about being open to straight supporters and in fact the majority of many highschool GSA groups are straight. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by busting up people who don't cater to GLBT politics. I know groups will fight for equal rights afforded to them under the amendment but just because GLBT groups may disagree with another group doesn't mean they're trying to infringe on the others freedom of speech. I know the highschools are starting to have "the day of truth" where they denounce the lies of GLBT "propaganda". To date I haven't seen a single GSA try to infringe on the rights of conservative school groups from having their day of truth, even if they disagree.

Minx, if you really cannot understand what many of us gays and lesbian think and feel, then don't 'interact' with us, as you put it. Try actually talking and LISTENING. Try to understand.

Um well that was the point of this topic now wasn't it? I was trying to understand the rationality of socially conservative GLBT. I was trying to find out what the motives were for something seemingly contradiction. But thank you so much for putting words and ideas in my mouth that weren't my own. It's always nice when someone tries to put a hand up your ass and turn you into a ventriloquist act. Unfortunately, you have failed to address my question in any way and seem to have missed the point of the whole thread. My question simply stands, "How can someone who's gay be socially conservative about gay issues and still be accepting of the fact they're gay or even justify it to themselves?" So, if you're done trying to insult me, I'd love to hear an explanation.

 

[HarlotMinx]

The sad thing is I have a feeling slimtrimfem was made for the sole purpose of trolling this thread and I probably wont get a response. It's a shame because it'd actually be fun to see how he justifies his argument that I'm out to destroy religious beliefs and how I want to impose myself on them when I'm not talking about that at all.

 

[HarlotMinx]

Anyone who believes in any religion which features a god (or gods) which personally cares for the euphemistic "soul" of any individual creature, is seriously deluded.

Get with it folks, there is no "personal savior" or omnipresent and omnipotent god who will weigh your soul in a balance at the 'final judgment.' If we weren't all so fucked over by centuries upon centuries of repression by priests and self-proclaimed prophets life would be a lot better on this planet.

That's a kind of sad belief. Religion as formed in every single culture around the world no matter the distance or physical barrier. It's touched every facet of our society and has been responsible for many amazing and horrible events. If people choose to believe in religion, good for them. Some people need a reason... I'm atheist myself but I don't begrudge someone their beliefs.

 

[Ike_The_Spike]

I'll have to come back and read this thread more closely.

I am fairly conservative, and bi, closeted due to my home situation, but bi. I'm a practicing Catholic (don't know if I'll ever get it right), and in my Church, marriage is between a man and woman. I struggle with my sexual identity and my religion on a regular basis. I recognize that my church sees me practicing my sexuality as a sin and I have to reconcile that with God. It's not easy, but it's what I have to do.

If I choose to end my marriage, and remain a practicing Catholic, I'm not allowed to take anyone in my bed. If I can't reconcile that, I need to change one of those circumstances. It will depend on what I feel is more important to me, my sexuality, or my religion. I honestly don't know what it would be at this point since I'm not in that situation.

My take on same sex marriage is that it shouldn't be legalized, or made illegal for that matter. I feel that marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government at all. Marriage is a creation of religion, therefore should fall solely under the per view of religious entities, any marriage, opposite sex or same sex. Anything the government wants to be part of should be a civil union.

If you want your union to be recognized by the government, you get a civil union license. If you want a marriage, you go to a church that will marry you and your partner.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'll have to come back and read this thread more closely.
...

If you want your union to be recognized by the government, you get a civil union license. If you want a marriage, you go to a church that will marry you and your partner.

I kind of like that idea as well. The institution of marriage includes so many rights and privileges, that to write a contract that covers them all takes IIR, 300 pages.

I think those rights and privileges should devolve onto civil unions, and let church marriages be sanctified only in the eyes of that church. To get the federal benefits, couples should apply for a civil union. A couple married in a church but not recognised in our secular legal system would not be able to share federal social security benefits, would not necessarily have power of attorney over their spouse if spouse's family want to take that power; would not be able to file joint federal tax returns, would have to adopt the children of the union in order to retain custody. Church-wed spouses would not be eligible for immigration rights-- that would have to be done via civil union.

Church marriages would certainly celebrate the love... But that's about it.



Here is a page that explains some of the differences; http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

 

[Ike_The_Spike]

Stella, I'm not at all surprised that you understood what I meant pretty much right out of the box.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, I'm not at all surprised that you understood what I meant pretty much right out of the box.

There are churches in every state that will perform gay marriages, that's what is so ironic. And those marriages are "in the eyes of the Lord" and not valid legally.
My Pagan friends will jump the broom or handfast, for the spiritual satisfaction-- but go to the judge to legally validate their union.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I actually remember visiting Senator Olympia Snowe and asking if republicans would be willing to support a bill to reclassify marriage as civil union on the basis that marriage is a religious function and also allow same sex civil unions. She told us that the conservatives would never back such a bill because their constituents would see it as the government trying to remove religion from america in the name of gay marriage. She also felt that even non conservatives would stand against the bill because they would get the impression that the government was dissolving their marriage; It'd panic people. I love the idea and have always been a supporter of removing marriage from the government but I think it'd be too misunderstood by people to pass. Though that's one of the perks of living in DC, you can actually talk to senators about policy in person..... given you have to make a appointment and wait.... but most of the senators are surprisingly open to talking to people.

 

[HarlotMinx]

On a side note, Snowe is a awesome example that republicans can support gay marriage without it being "against the cause." By far my favorite republican senator.

 

[Ike_The_Spike]

A Republican from Maine is not so much of a Republican in my opinion as a 60's - 70's Democrat. In other words, a Democrat that is actually willing to listen to differing opinions without spewing hate, and willing to compromise for the greater good of the country.