Should homosexuals have the right to marriage?

[Rowan]

I've been thinking on this one a lot. Marriage equality may seem like a progressive movement, but at what cost? Lets talk about where the blame should lay directly with; The church.

Marriage is seen by both government and religion, as a religious ceremony. However, the public consider it a right. I myself have not been baptized nor am I willing too, therefor I cannot be married in a church or by a minister. This leads me to believe that marriage is still more a religious right than it is a government right. Secularism is by definition the separation of church and state. When the government steps in and assumes power of what the church can and cannot do, is a direct violation of secularism. This works both ways and secularism is in place to ensure people can exercise religion free of external influence. Obviously there are limits though to what a religion can practice, but excluding others from specific ceremony should be a decision made solely by the church and if I cant get married in a church because I'm not a catholic, than how is that not also discrimination?

Facts do not care about feelings, so I'm here to tell you that this is the scenario we are involved in here in Australia, and indeed elsewhere in the world. Marriage equality might seem like a step in the right direction, but when a government makes decisions the church should have the right to make, you need to realize that an injustice is happening at the same time.

Be mad, be upset or angry. But direct your anger where it belongs. Be mad at the church.

Here are some points to address;
Why do you want to identify with a religion that rejects you?
You can pick and choose which parts of scripture you like, but you cannot pretend that the bad parts don't exist. This includes Leviticus 18;22 "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination"
The bible is not up-to interpretation, with special regards to this issue. I think this point has been made very clear by the church.
If its for tax purposes, get a civil union. You shouldn't need a piece of paper to prove you love someone, but a civil service can provide the exact same scenario and results as a wedding, albeit the religious aspect.

[Heartless Angel]

The fault can't be laid entirely at the feet of the church. A large part of the problem, at least in America is that a lot of legal rights revolving around couples are contingent upon actual marriage. Like someone in serious condition in the hospital might be restricted to visits from immediate family only. Marriage means you count as immediate family, a civil union doesn't. Other issues pertaining to custody of children, inheritance, and several other things are set up the same way, marriage counts, civil unions don't. THAT is on the government for laws being written to depend on religious terminology, simply by doing that, they have placed a function of state in the hands of the church. At first that still might seem to be a failing of the church of misusing that power, but here's the thing, the church doesn't really give a damn who gets to visit who in the hospital or how a dead guy's possessions are distributed, their interest in defining marriage has nothing to do with the ways the state has implicitly allowed them to control legal rights. The state has put them in the position of choosing between their own interests, and the interests of gay couples, and much to the surprise of no one, they choose their own interests. They should never have been given that choice, because the word 'marriage' should never have appeared in law, anywhere. Ever. Blaming the church for misusing that power they never should have had is like blaming a toddler for killing someone with the loaded gun you handed them. The only reason the problem exists is because someone who was supposed to be responsible for all this dropped the ball, allowing marriage to fall into a grey area between church and state that was never supposed to exist.

Short answer, should homosexuals have the right to marriage? No. The church isn't required to change their beliefs based on public opinion, opinion of the state, or anyone else. BUT, as long as poor wording and legal traditions leave marriage entangled in issues of state, the government kind of has to try to do something to protect homosexual rights, because the government actually IS responsible for that, because homosexuals DO have the right to the same legal privileges as anyone else.

[Rowan]

Short answer, should homosexuals have the right to marriage? No. The church isn't required to change their beliefs based on public opinion, opinion of the state, or anyone else. BUT, as long as poor wording and legal traditions leave marriage entangled in issues of state, the government kind of has to try to do something to protect homosexual rights, because the government actually IS responsible for that, because homosexuals DO have the right to the same legal privileges as anyone else.

This is what I believe. Although in Australia we have the right to assign property , custody, inheritance etc to whomever we want, even outside of marriage. I feel the issue is more that of an American one than it is Australian, as our laws are different in this regard (Or at least I think they are).

I honestly just want people to recognize the bigotry of the church and not bitch at the government to make the church change their beliefs to match their own, however good intended they might be.

[Spooniest]

My opinion is best summed up:

"As I get older year by year
And totter toward the tomb,
I find that I care less and less
Who goes to bed with whom."

Australia says you may designate anyone your legal partner with all medical visit, child custody and property executation rights intact...

The reason I think America has not done this is that the general level of sophistication of thought around here is and has always been somewhat inferior to other cultures, i.e. anti intellectualism has been institutionalized in our culture.

Understanding the benefit of the greater good over your religious fanaticism and fear of an angry God smiting you takes a bit of intellectual fortitude that the Good Old U.S. of A. has simply never been able to muster.

[Pete]

I pretty much agree with Rowan and Heartless. It's wrong to force any religious institution to go against their beliefs and traditions in recognizing same sex marriages.

I do think that government should be progressive enough to recognize same sex marriages. Even if you want to call them civil unions or partnerships, what have you; they should allow for the same rights as a married man and woman. That means hospital visitation rights, property rights, wills and literally everything that being in a straight wedding grants. Literally, just go through the same steps that government makes anyone else do. So what if a church won't have you? You'll save like $500 by skipping it.

On a personal level. I really don't care. Marry whoever you want, as long as you're both happy and it's being done willingly.

[Alpha]

Pretty sure the Australian marriage equality stuff is not going to affect any church or religious organisation, Rowan.

The Catholic Church (as one example, and the biggest single Christian church in Australia) does not recognise divorce, but of course it is still possible to be legally divorced. The Church would not recognise your divorce if you had one, and Catholics who are civilly divorced are in a state of unrepentant mortal sin and are not supposed to receive Communion. That's because when you're married in a Catholic ceremony you are making a solemn promise to be married until one of you dies (there are a few exceptions for things that retrospectively make the marriage invalid, e.g. if one of you was coerced, or if you withheld a grave matter from your spouse that if they knew, they would not have given consent to the marriage), and to also raise your children as Catholics (which is hard to do if you get a divorce when it is contrary to the Church's understanding of your vocation as a married Catholic). There are lots of marriages that the Church does not recognise as valid, not only homosexual ones. There are also lots of people who are not Catholic and who simply wouldn't ever consider what the Church thinks about their marriage. That's what's up for consideration: whether the state should allow homosexual marriage to be legal. It has very little to do with the Church, because it does not force the Church to change anything about how it operates. If it did, it would be a gross constitutional violation in Australia.

If you're wondering then why the Church would still be against gay marriage, it is because the Church puts great weight on the concept of Natural Law. It views men and women as complementary and divinely ordered, and that a voluntary, permanent union of a man and a woman is the only moral union in which people can have sex and children. There are no doubt many in the laity who are lukewarm about opposition to gay marriage (particularly vis-á-vis abortion) because the secular state clearly has the established prerogative to marry and divorce people. Any people.

FWIW, gay marriage is legal in New Zealand. There were lots of demonstrations in favour at the time the legislation went through, and some smaller counter-protests, but it was never really in doubt. Nothing has changed in the Catholic Church, and the issue pretty much has never come up again, like it's just not mentioned. It's actually quite peaceful. I know this because I'm due to be married in the Church in November. I think the Anglican Church in general is still debating the issue of whether to allow gay marriage now that it is legal.

[Taco-Calamitous]

It was my understanding that due to the Supreme Court ruling a couple years ago (this one), same sex marriage was now legal throughout the US. From what other people have said in this thread, either same sex marriage is legal, or civil unions grant the same rights where they live. This discussion makes me curious about other parts of the world, however, like East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, etc., where the Abrahamic religions didn't really ever gain much influence.

So yes, same sex couples should be allowed to marry, because they have that right by law, and their choice to get married really doesn't effect anyone else's lives aside from their own.

The Catholic Church is indeed very old school, as Alpha has described. I'm not super up to date on all of it, like he seems to be, heh, but when I was in Arkansas, there was this couple that was going to this "Landings" program (returning Catholics who have been away from the church for a while). They had been divorced, he had married someone else, he got divorced, and they got married again. His standing in the church due to that was one of his big reasons for being upset with it, but the priest was making it sound like things would work out for him, somehow. I don't really recall clearly anymore; it's been over a year now.

But yeah; same sex marriages probably aren't going to happen in the Catholic Church any time soon. I believe they are happening in other denominations, however.

[Pete]

I've had enough beers to play devil's advocate to my prior post. Here goes.

That's honestly one of my biggest problems with the Catholic Church. Everything seems so rooted in a "perfect" world. Almost a 1950s Leave it to Beaver quality. The boys will go off and fight some heathens and die, we'll pray for them and send missionaries. We'll gloss over "the two guys living together without girlfriends are roommates just trying to save a buck". Etc. But homosexuals? Scandalous!

I'd like to see more priests actually acknowledge what Jesus allegedly said in the Bible as opposed to using it as a tool for bashing others. What ever happened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Like, seriously. I don't care who you are or what you do, just don't wave it in my face.

Also, why not let priests marry? If you have to go through a church sponsored course to get married in a Catholic church, shouldn't the guy running it be able to give advice as a married man, or couple? Even for counseling programs. How is a guy who's committed to being single and in the company of other dudes all the time supposed to be able to help you with marriage issues?

[Taco-Calamitous]

It's interesting, because in my experience, the priests I've listened to sermons from have often included big societal events or tragedies when they had happened recently. I also spoke to a chaplain in Arkansas when I was going through rough times and then the break up with Dodie, and he had a lot of good things to say to me about it, or at least things that made me feel better at the time that he said them. I moved on to a psychiatrist and psychologist because my issues required medical aid, I thought, but if not, he probably could've helped me just as well as the psychologist did. People often talk about Catholic church communities being really uptight, and I've found that to generally not be the case, in my experience. Maybe it has to do with the area you live in, or the church you go to. I told my whole story to that Landings group I talked about in my other post, expecting some rejection, but they were really understanding about everything I told them, and it was a lot of stuff. Also they drank with me, so there was that.

I think I really like the new Pope, as he seems to be doing away with some of the church's stricter tendencies.

My biggest problem with the church, that I spent years trying to reconcile but find I can't, is how it has dealt with the pedophilia.

[Rowan]

Pretty sure the Australian marriage equality stuff is not going to affect any church or religious organisation, Rowan. There are lots of marriages that the Church does not recognise as valid, not only homosexual ones. There are also lots of people who are not Catholic and who simply wouldn't ever consider what the Church thinks about their marriage. That's what's up for consideration: whether the state should allow homosexual marriage to be legal. It has very little to do with the Church, because it does not force the Church to change anything about how it operates. If it did, it would be a gross constitutional violation in Australia.

My point is, if a church refuses to marry a gay couple because it goes against their beliefs, and the government says they have too, isnt that a direct violation of the churches right to operate in accordance to their beliefs? Why should the state have any consideration to what the church decides to do? I dont think I understand your point of view because you say it has little to do with the church, but it seems like it has almost everything to do with the church.

[Pete]

I think the point is the opposite. The church is the church, but the state has ultimate say. If your Jesus isn't down, someone else's is

[Alpha]

My point is, if a church refuses to marry a gay couple because it goes against their beliefs, and the government says they have too, isnt that a direct violation of the churches right to operate in accordance to their beliefs? Why should the state have any consideration to what the church decides to do? I dont think I understand your point of view because you say it has little to do with the church, but it seems like it has almost everything to do with the church.

Is the government in Australia saying they have to? The Church can marry anyone it chooses, therefore it can not marry anyone it chooses, as well. You won't find a Catholic priest who will marry you unless you do an approved marriage preparation course, for example. My point is that there is a distinction between a legal marriage and a marriage in the Church. I think France has it down: the two are completely separate procedures that most people just do at around the same time. To be honest I think that a lot of the confusion comes about because these have the same word, "marriage".

[pmrcr]

There's also an cultural issue. There's a ton of religious countries, where even though the country itself isn't declared to any religion, the vast majority of people makes it so. Yes, I hate it. And yes, I think homosexuals should have right to marry whoever they want (ofc when it comes to civil marriage). Should the church or any other religious institution make it happen? I don't think so, but the catholic has changed its mind so many times already, we don't really know what to expect.