The whole debate about gay marriage is mute. It is like debating wether or not the Tooth Fairy exists.
Debate it all you want, the Tooth Fairy does not exist.
Marriage is a sacrament, it only exists in the eyes of God. No peice of paper or legal legislation will make the Tooth Fairy a reality and neither will a same sex marriage ever be real.
You are just fooling yourself if you are gay and married to a same sex partner if you believe it is real.
Disney now offers a wedding package to gay partners, that is appropriate, keep it out of the Churches and where it belongs... Mickey Mouse.
I hope this opinion has helped.
27 comments
For one thing, the word is moot, not mute.
Marriage isn't a sacrament in all denominations, and marriages have varied throughout the Bible, so which marriage is sacred?
And you know what? I don't care if individual churches don't want to marry gay couples. I just want the justice of the peace to do it because he/she shouldn't care beans for the gender of the couple anymore than he cares beans for the religion or sexual predilections of the couple.
I've come to see the gay marriage debate as a seperation of church and state issue. Marriage is one of two things:
1) Marrage is a religious rite.
This is the big tripping point for religious folk. They see marriage the same way they see circumcisions and bar mitzvahs, as a ceremony for a religous purpose. If this were true, however, than the government shouldn't have any say in who gets married or why. You don't hear jews bitching about gentiles getting a circumcision, nor do you see them petitioning the government to prohibit it. With the government constrained by the constitution to not interfere with the free exercise of religion, it would be up to the individual religious institutions (or non-religious instutions) to determine who can participate in the ceremony. The government would also be required to honor any contract between consenting adults (e.g. a civil union) and people could call that contract whatever they wanted. If they called it a marriage, they'd be technically incorrect, but I'm sure they wouldn't give a rats ass.
2)Marriage is a anthropological phenonemon that existed long before it was formalized by religion.
If this is the case, than the imposed religious significance has no relevance on who gets married or not. If marriage is a religious experience for you, great, and if it isn't, that's great too. Stripped of it's religous connotation, marriage boils down to a civil contract and as such, any consenting adult is free to enter for whatever purpose and under whatever pretenses.
I don't know if I articulated my point very well, but whenever I hear people debating the issue of gay marriage, they frame the debate in a way that both are equally right (or wrong depending on your perspective). Conservatives frame it as a religious issue, and liberals as a free association issue and my point is that the government should have never been involved with marriages and marriage liscences in the first place.
Marriage is a sacrament in the eyes of the church. But it is a legal entity in the eyes of the government, which is why they issue you a license and you may be married by non-clergy (judges, justices of the piece, etc,). It is also why you must go to court to dissolve a marriage.
Traditional marriage is the transfer of property, i.e. the bride to the new owner of the property, i.e. the groom. Marriage on the U S is a civil ceremony and in the marriage ceremony the minister, priest or rabbi, will say by the power vested in me by the state of (wherever) I pronounce you wife and wife- just thought I'd slip that in.
Marriage is also a social contract, and that´s the part of the show that gays, and many non-gays, for that matter, want to hear. And it belongs to any Justice of Peace, for that matter.
Marriage is a legal union sanctioned by the government and a non-existent entity has no eyes, so your definition of marriage is MOOT. Legislation can make gay marriage real, just like regular marriage. The better analogy to the Tooth Fairy is God Itself, but Troo Christians are well versed in the methods of plugging their ears and singing "lalalalala" in order to drown out that idea.
@Osiris
Personally, I'd say all legal marriages are civil unions, and the Church can keep the damned word "marriage." If nothing else, it'd cause the fundies and the bigots to tip their hands and prove it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with denying us rights.
Only the act at the civil registrars office is important. Thats the real thing, what gives partners the rights and obligations of a marriage, like inheritance, visiting rights at hospital etc.
Any so-called "marriage" in a church is nothing but a nice ritual. Without any further consequences. A wedding in a church is NOT the real thing. Yes, it's comparable to the Disney Mickey Mouse wedding you mentioned.
I guess you mean moot, not mute.
OK, the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, but then neither does your God, as they both have exactly the same amount of evidence, i.e. none.
Gay marriages do exist however, and married gays have the same worldly rights as married heterosexuals.
I'm a heterosexual, married to an opposite-sex partner; I still "believe" that gay marriages are real.
Nope, it hasn't helped at all. Vitriol and bigotry are seldom helpful.
Admit it: The only thing that chaps your ass about gay marriage is that you don't know who's the master and who's the slave. You can't tell at a glance which one you have to pretend to respect, and which one you can openly treat like dirt.
Love, respect and mutual equality? EVIL!
Violence, fear and male domination? Perfectly holy and acceptable!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.