gay marriages - Page 13

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by son_of_putrefaction

I admire Jesus, but his present to earth is unforgivable...

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
--Ghandi

Crying_Crimson_Tears · 01-21-2007, 07:22 AM

MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE!!! Let anyone marry damn it.

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 07:24 AM

Marriage is supposed to be about love, and there's supposed to be a separation of Church and State, too, hun. No matter what our lofty ideals are, we have to fight for our rights.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 08:43 AM

Apologies first... I may have already posted in this thread but I'm 90% sure that I haven't. I can't really be arsed wandering through 7 pages to see if I've said what I'm about to say. So, if I have and you're reading it for the second time, please forgive my forgetfullness. Dementia is a bitch to live with.

Disclaimers second... As I said above, I've not waded through the 7 pages of posts that have come before this one. I know that it is lazy, but alas, I am in a lazy mood. I am also at work and therefore really can't afford the time to sit and read multiple posts on a topic.

Also this post is my personal opinion. I think it's ridiculous that I need to state that, because everything that I post here is obviously my personal opinion... but I'm sure that everyone has seen people over-react to posts and assume that the poster was claiming to speak an absolute truth when all they were doing was airing their own opinion.

And onto the main feature...
I've thought about this a lot... being a lesbian who is in a long term relationship with a woman.

I am an extremely spiritual person, and I am not a Christian. That being said, I do have a lot of respect for the Christian Path and I believe that the marriage ritual (as we practice it in Australia) is very much based in Christianity-not only the idea of a church wedding, but the form that the ritual takes with making a vow in front of God and Man which is presided over by someone ordained (whether as a Minister by the church or as a JP by the State) to officiate over such a rite. I believe that taking such a fundamental Christian ritual and turning it to suit my own purpose as a Wiccan is disrespectful to what that ritual first stood for. I also very much believe that words and ritual have great power inbedded in them, especially after being performed for centuries, and I don't intend to mess around with that power.

Tracey and I intend to spend the rest of our lives together. We are currently looking at having children in the next two years. This poses great legal problems for us, especially seeing as she is a US citizen living in Australia on a Permanent Residency Visa and I am an Australian citizen. We have a few options open to us for having a baby... but the potential risks of each option are huge.

Tracey gets pregnant/baby born in Australia... A baby born of a foreign parent on Australian soil is not an Australian citizen. This means that if something were to happen to Tracey the baby could (and probably would) be deported to the US because I would have no legal rights over the child.

Tracey gets pregnant/baby born in USA... A baby born on American soil is automatically a US citizen. This means that if something happens to Tracey I could not bring the baby back to Australia with me because I would have no legal rights over the child.

I get pregnant/baby born in Australia... A baby born to an Australia citizen is automatically an Australian citizen, this means if something happens to me the baby stays in Australia and can not go to the USA with Tracey.

I get pregnant/baby born in the USA... A baby born in the USA would be a US citizen, which means that I could not bring the baby into Australia on my passport and would have to apply for a visa. It something happened to Tracey while we were living in the USA then I could be deported (as my Visa status as her partner) would've changed but the baby might have to stay.

None of these even look at the issues of the baby's conception. We would both like a friend to help us with conceiving. I think that a baby should be created out of an act of love, even if it is love between two friends, and not a scientific process involving a turkey baister. However, if the 'natural mother' of the baby should die then the 'father' will have a legal right to that child and the 'non-mother' has no rights, even though she raised the baby and the 'father' had little or no contact. If something happens to both mothers then the 'father' and his family has more legal right to the child than the family of the 'non-mother' ...which would be ok if Tracey has the baby, because her family is lovely, but if I have the baby I do not want my mess of a family looking after that child.

IVF isn't an option in Australia because gay woman aren't allowed access to the IVF program... and adoption by gay couples is illegal in both the USA and Australia.

So, basically... even if we could get married, there would need to be a million other law changes to let us have equality with straight married people.

It might be nice to start off by giving us equality with straight single people first.

[/rant]

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 09:03 AM

So, you think it's disrespectful for you, as a Wiccan, to use a Christian ritual for your own purposes. I get that. What if you were a Christian lesbian? Would that still be disrespectful? Is it disrespectful for straight Wiccan people to get married? These are not arguments, just questions.

That being said, although the ceremony itself is a Christian ritual, does that mean you would forgo the rights of a married couple because of that? Even if you were straight, would you give up those rights?

There are, in my eyes, two main reasons people fight for gay marriages. One reason is for recognition. It's very much akin to "we're here, we're queer, get used to it", and similar mantras. It's about being recognized as a couple.

The other reason is for rights. This is the reason I believe more strongly in. Call it what you will, gay people ought to have the right to get married. It's about equality. More than that, gay people ought to have spousal rights just as straight people do.

So, sure, you wouldn't personally use what you feel is a Christian ceremony to get married to Tracey... But you deserve the same rights my mom has in regards to my dad and in regards to my siblings and I.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

So, you think it's disrespectful for you, as a Wiccan, to use a Christian ritual for your own purposes. I get that. What if you were a Christian lesbian? Would that still be disrespectful? Is it disrespectful for straight Wiccan people to get married? These are not arguments, just questions.

Please question away. I love a good discussion about things and it gets frustrating when people assume that you are arguing because you are discussing two different points of view.

I think that if you follow a religion then you should be following all of the teachings of that religion. It is like you joined a club, so you have a responsibility to follow the regulations of that club, either that or go join a different club... that being said, I don't think that lesbians should be Christian. -pulls on her flame resistant gear- This is my opinion and I don't think that gay Christians are bad people... I just don't understand how they would want to be part of a religion that clearly states that being gay is wrong. I'm also not saying that Christianity is bad, it is just that it has it's own set of doctrine and belief system and a part of that pertains to homosexuality.

I think that a straight Wiccan couple getting married by a Christian based ritual would be the same as a gay Wiccan couple getting married by that ritual. For me the disrespect doesn't really come from whether you are gay or straight, it comes from the fact that you don't have faith in the things that ritual is based in, so why would you use that ritual in something that is going to bind you so powerfully to someone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

That being said, although the ceremony itself is a Christian ritual, does that mean you would forgo the rights of a married couple because of that? Even if you were straight, would you give up those rights?

Yes. If I were straight I would not get married using a Christian based ritual... which means that I would not get married. I realise that marriage is a legal arrangement and not only a spiritual one, but I believe that even the legal side of the arrangement has foundations in the Christian ritual. The difference (in Australia, anyways) is that if I am in a de facto relationship for over a year with a man then the Federal and State government recognises that relationship has the same legal weight as a marriage. So I am entitled to all superannuation benefits, pensions, health insurance etc that would normally be passed to a wife, even though we aren't legally married. If I am in a de facto relationship with a woman then this doesn't happen. Some of it is recognised, like superannuation benefits and visa applications. We got Tracey's visa on the fact that we were a de facto couple... but other things are not. The right to be the parent of my girlfriends children being a prime example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

There are, in my eyes, two main reasons people fight for gay marriages. One reason is for recognition. It's very much akin to "we're here, we're queer, get used to it", and similar mantras. It's about being recognized as a couple.

The other reason is for rights. This is the reason I believe more strongly in. Call it what you will, gay people ought to have the right to get married. It's about equality. More than that, gay people ought to have spousal rights just as straight people do.

So, sure, you wouldn't personally use what you feel is a Christian ceremony to get married to Tracey... But you deserve the same rights my mom has in regards to my dad and in regards to my siblings and I.

I totally agree with you on this. I don't disagree with gay marriage. If a gay couple want to express their love that way then they should be able to do so. I am saying that as half of a gay couple, this isn't a way that I would choose to express my love for my partner. But just because I don't want to get married.. and just because I don't want to get married to a man, I don't think that I should be limited in my life by a government policy that was put into effect when we still believed that homosexuality was a psychiatric condition.

I don't want to get married. But I desperately want to have a baby, and I desperately want to know that that baby is going to be safe with Tracey and I, no matter what happens to us.

Panther · 01-21-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

That being said, although the ceremony itself is a Christian ritual, does that mean you would forgo the rights of a married couple because of that? Even if you were straight, would you give up those rights?

Not to derail the thread, but marriage isn't a Christian creation. It's much much older. After all, didn't Jesus go to a wedding? Wasn't Sarah Abraham's wife? Marriage has always been two people who are in love being joined forever in the eyes of their divinity and the general public. Just because it's presented as being Christian doesn't mean they have the copyright on it.

I was dating a Wiccan very seriously until just recently, so I did so research about marriage in non-mainstream religions. There are things like Hand-fasting, or even just a very casual event where you're joined by a close family member, and the JP signs the marriage certificate. It can be very casual and different if you choose.

As for gay marriage, I'm in favor of it. Love is love. Voila.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panther

Not to derail the thread, but marriage isn't a Christian creation. It's much much older. After all, didn't Jesus go to a wedding? Wasn't Sarah Abraham's wife? Marriage has always been two people who are in love being joined forever in the eyes of their divinity and the general public. Just because it's presented as being Christian doesn't mean they have the copyright on it.

I was dating a Wiccan very seriously until just recently, so I did so research about marriage in non-mainstream religions. There are things like Hand-fasting, or even just a very casual event where you're joined by a close family member, and the JP signs the marriage certificate. It can be very casual and different if you choose.

As for gay marriage, I'm in favor of it. Love is love. Voila.

If you scrolled up further you would see that DHD was speaking in reference to something that I had said. I also gave reason for why I had said it and I spoke about legal marriages as opposed to religious ones and the officiating of a JP.

Perhaps finding out the context of a statement before disagreeing with it might be an idea in future?

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

I don't think that lesbians should be Christian. -pulls on her flame resistant gear- This is my opinion and I don't think that gay Christians are bad people... I just don't understand how they would want to be part of a religion that clearly states that being gay is wrong. I'm also not saying that Christianity is bad, it is just that it has it's own set of doctrine and belief system and a part of that pertains to homosexuality.

I think that really has more to do with your interpretation of the bible. See, the only verses that actually pertain to homosexuality (and that weren't revised with some "creative translating" to pertain to homosexuality) are one verse in leviticus and one verse in the book of... I can't actually remember, but I know it's a quote tributed to Paul.

I'm sure you have heard all of this before, but I don't see any reason not to go over it all again... We're not the only ones reading this discussion.

Basically, Leviticus also says it's ok to own slaves and have sex with them. It tells you not to cut your hair. It tells you not to eat certain foods. Christians do all of those things, because when Jesus came along he made it so the Top Ten were the commandments of importance. There's also the whole that-verse-is-open-to-interpretation thing. I mean, the verse in question is "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." That could be interpreted many ways. Additionally, many of the laws in Leviticus are not supposed to be about Christianity but are instead about cleanliness. The no-shrimp rule, for instance. That verse could be about the cleanliness involved in homosexuality in that day and age.

Paul was a man with opinions and biases like any other man. Just because he, personally, didn't agree with homosexuality doesn't mean that God felt the same way. Jesus was never quoted as saying anything negative about homosexuality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

Yes. If I were straight I would not get married using a Christian based ritual... which means that I would not get married. I realise that marriage is a legal arrangement and not only a spiritual one, but I believe that even the legal side of the arrangement has foundations in the Christian ritual. The difference (in Australia, anyways) is that if I am in a de facto relationship for over a year with a man then the Federal and State government recognises that relationship has the same legal weight as a marriage. So I am entitled to all superannuation benefits, pensions, health insurance etc that would normally be passed to a wife, even though we aren't legally married. If I am in a de facto relationship with a woman then this doesn't happen. Some of it is recognised, like superannuation benefits and visa applications. We got Tracey's visa on the fact that we were a de facto couple... but other things are not. The right to be the parent of my girlfriends children being a prime example.

So it comes down to rights. It's about having the same rights as straight people, to choose to get married or have a de facto relationship or remain single all your life with all the same rights as a heterosexual person.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 10:20 AM

It is about your interpretation of the Bible. That is why I'm not saying that Christians or Christianity is bad, and that is why I'm not saying that gay Christians are bad. I'm saying that from the way that I interpret the Bible I believe that it says that homosexuality is wrong.

The Bible says that "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." I believe that this means that all of the things written in the Bible are in fact the word of God. Even if Paul wrote something, he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it and in that way they are God's words. There is a verse (which I can't remember... I'm at work and I don't have my Bible with me, but when I get home I will find it and post it) that says that homosexuality is wrong... it puts it in a list of wrong things, along with murder. It is interesting to note that disobeying your parents is also in this list. God doesn't grade sins-there aren't bad sins and really bad sins. Because a sin is just a symptom of a problem, and the Bible says that the problem is not having faith and following God.

I agree with what you are saying about the Old Testament being superceded by the New Testament. The idea behind the OT is that it shows us that it is impossible to work our way to heaven. It gives us rule after rule after rule to follow if we want to get to heaven, with the idea that we are meant to throw up our hands and scream that it is impossible for us to do all of this ourselves. Enter, stage left... Jesus, who agrees with us. Yes, it is impossible for us mere mortals to get to heaven by ourselves, but because Jesus lived a sinless life and followed God perfectly his death was enough to pay for all of mankinds sins. Romans 3 says "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." It is interesting that they use the term 'wages' which implies that death is something that we've been working to obtain through sinning.

Now.. all that being said.. I choose to interpret the verses of the Bible in a more Evangelical (meaning that the Bible is seen as the direct word of God) way. I understand that others choose not to do this, and I respect their choice.

But at the end of the day, your statement saying...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness
So it comes down to rights. It's about having the same rights as straight people, to choose to get married or have a de facto relationship or remain single all your life with all the same rights as a heterosexual person.

...is exactly the point I want to make.

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

it puts it in a list of wrong things, along with murder. It is interesting to note that disobeying your parents is also in this list.

That sounds awfully like the Ten Commandments to me. Those are in the book of Leviticus, but there's also a whole list of other rules that I referred to above about not eating shrimp or cutting your hair. There was once a letter written, ostensibly to Dr. Laura, about all of the discrepancies in that particular part of the bible as applied to Christianity today. I say "ostensibly" because no one is really sure if the letter ever got sent directly to her, or if she was the original intended receiver of the letter. It's been modified many times to be sent to other people. Here's the letter, in whatever stage of modification I found it in:

Quote:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 10:37 AM

I don't quite know who Dr Laura is... I'm from Australia and we don't have her here. I'm guessing she's a TV or radio religious guru type?

I love...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

That is brilliant.

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 10:44 AM

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio host that gives people advice. Her advice is always very black-and-white, but it's not specifically Christian advice. She has actually made statements publicly about how, no matter how much you've changed, it's ok for people to hate you for who you were in the past (in the example of ex-cheating-spouses, ex-cons, etc.). Ironically, after her having made that sort of statement on several occasions, and also after her having spoken out against pornography, some hilarious nudies of her surfaced.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 10:50 AM

LOL.

You'd think that people who end up in those sorts of jobs would realise that they need to have a spotless past if they are going to be pointing fingers.

Anyways, I'm about to start my morning round at work and wake up all of my patients, so I have to get going. I'll pop back on in a couple of hours once I get home. It was really nice being able to have an intelligent conversation with you, DHD. Thankyou.

son_of_putrefaction · 01-21-2007, 01:05 PM

Limp Wrist had got a song called "Limp Wrist vs. Dr. Laura" so amazing xD.

Gay marriage is far more romantic because you've really got to fight for it, at least here, you've got to travel to another country.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by son_of_putrefaction

Gay marriage is far more romantic because you've really got to fight for it, at least here, you've got to travel to another country.

But what is the use of travelling to another country to get married when the country that you live in doesn't recognise the marriage?

We have a state in Australia where gay couples can legally get married, but the marriage isn't recognised by federal law. So, Tracey and I could move interstate and get married, but we still couldn't adopt because adoption laws are federal law, not state law.

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 01:43 PM

Well, one could say it's good short-term in that it's starting to set a precedent... It's a small battle to win, but a battle nonetheless.

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 01:48 PM

The REAL battle that was won lately was in Canada where a lesbian couple petitioned the courts to allow them to list the birth mother, birth father and the 'non-natural' mother on a baby's birth certificate. The two women are bringing up the baby, but they still want the 'father' to be a part of its life. They didn't want to have to go through the adoption process with the child because that involves one parent signing custody away. The Canadian High Court decided that the refusal to list all of the baby's parents was archaic and that the law needed to be changed to reflect the times.

DarkHeartedDemoness · 01-21-2007, 01:49 PM

Wow, that's great! Do you have a link to the article?

Delicate_Torture · 01-21-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

A child can legally have three parents, Ontario's highest court ruled in a landmark decision Tuesday.

In the so-called "two-mother" ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the biological mother of a five-year-old boy and her same-sex partner can both be legally recognized as mothers of the child. The boy's biological father is still recognized as his dad...

The mother and her partner did not apply for an adoption order because, if they did so, the father would lose his status under the Child and Family Services Act, Ontario's legislation covering child protection and adoption, court heard.

"Perhaps one of the greatest fears faced by lesbian mothers is the death of the birth mother. Without a declaration of parentage or some other order, the surviving partner would be unable to make decisions for their minor child, such as critical decisions about health care."

Source : CBC News Online - 03.01.2007