Equal Marriage Supporters

[DVC~OKW~96]

Well come on in! Happy to have you in the group.

How do you feel about wearing white ribbon with a center knot?

I'm thinking I'm going to be buying a bolt of the stuff.

 

[phragmipedium]

Count me in to spread the word! This is absolutely one of the biggest civil rights issues of this generation. Also count me in as one more who believes and accepts that churches and religious entities should still be able to define marriage as they wish, as long as a civil marriage is available with equal legal benefits to all who choose to use it (gay/straight couples alike). When I hear of a gay couple choosing to sue a Catholic church for refusing to perform a ceremony, I just want to say - this is not helping the cause! This should not be a battle between churches and the gay community, but with our government for the legal right to wed, have a recognized marriage and enjoy marital benefits. Churches have the right to refuse to marry a couple, though many are perfectly okay with gay couples entering unions. Some are not, which is just fine as long as civil marriages are available to all consenting adult couples. Prop 8 did nothing but invigorate the LGBTQ community and allies, and we will see a change in the near future - I know it.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Another question for the people who believe they have the religious right to infringe upon my life, my belief system and my values...

Why are you all so darned focused on the acts of homosexuality? What makes you think that is the sum total of being gay, that in every gay relationship that is even a factor? Is that a heterosexual thing? Love and the desire to remain with one another for life MUST have a physical component or it's not valid?

There are gay couples (and I'll bet you there are heterosexual couples too, but I don't know any) who love each other, are completely committed to one another, and have been together for years where physical acts are not the focus, and are not even aspects of their lives together. Some people do have the ability to love without the need for sharing bodies. If you can't fathom that, then that's your failure to understand.

Denying marriage based on the "acts" of homosexuality (it's that double speak about loving the sinner but hating the sin again) loses all credence when the acts are not an aspect of a given, loving union.

So, are we to assume then that marriage is only valid if people share their bodies?

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Didn't think there'd be too much response to that one.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

Another question for the people who believe they have the religious right to infringe upon my life, my belief system and my values...

Why are you all so darned focused on the acts of homosexuality? What makes you think that is the sum total of being gay, that in every gay relationship that is even a factor? Is that a heterosexual thing? Love and the desire to remain with one another for life MUST have a physical component or it's not valid?


Denying marriage based on the "acts" of homosexuality (it's that double speak about loving the sinner but hating the sin again) loses all credence when the acts are not an aspect of a given, loving union.

So, are we to assume then that marriage is only valid if people share their bodies?

I'm sure there are plenty of heterosexual couples who enjoy some of the same things.

 

[FSUDisneyGirl]

I'll join!

 

[ConcKahuna]

So who has a gay friendly church near them?

Here in the Orlando area, there are many churches who accept gay members, although Joy Metropolitan Community Church shines above the rest. With several gay clergy members and a large gay following, they help spread the word that being gay doesnt mean you cant love God!

www.joymcc.com

 

[Laurabearz]

Given a chance to vote I would vote for it

 

[dwheatl]

So who has a gay friendly church near them?

We have several near by. Not all are on the list.
Just an hour or two ago I added my name to EqualityCalifornia.

 

[rie'smom]

Every adult free to marry should be able to marry the partner of their choice.

 

[bicker]

Didn't think there'd be too much response to that one.

This would be the wrong thread for such responses.

So who has a gay friendly church near them?

Our church is a Welcoming Congregation; the Unitarian Universalist Church of Reading.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Sorry Bicker, I don't agree. Talking about the many factors that surround gay marriage is the point.

No matter... discussion of the issue on any level is better than none, eh?

I think the Unitarian Church is quite accepting (located in downtown Orlando) also. I had a co-worker invite me to attend one of their Sunday services.

It's important for the gay community to know what churches and other places of worship/service are accepting of all G-d's people. :yes: We surely don't want to give our time and service to a group that doesn't want our contributions, eh?

 

[bicker]

Sorry Bicker, I don't agree. Talking about the many factors that surround gay marriage is the point.

If that was the case, this thread would come close to replicating a thread about something that a moderator recently locked. No?

Beyond that, typically, haven't we limited comments in a thread labeled "Supporters" or "No Bashing" to comments that are supportive? I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to solicit contrarian replies in a thread labeled in this way.

Personally, I'd prefer having a true "supporters" thread for this issue. JMHO.

Perhaps the OP can change the thread title to make the intent of this thread more clear-cut.

I think the Unitarian Church is quite accepting (located in downtown Orlando) also. I had a co-worker invite me to attend one of their Sunday services. It's important for the gay community to know what churches and other places of worship/service are accepting of all G-d's people. :yes: We surely don't want to give our time and service to a group that doesn't want our contributions, eh?

Absolutely. Orlando UU is associated with our church, and I suspect the welcome there for folks of all persuasions typically snubbed by many Christian churches, synagogues, etc., will be as sincere and as genuine as at our church. I don't know but perhaps what might be interesting is to also learn of those Christian churches, synagogues, etc., that are welcoming in the same way. While I'm the first person to whole-heartedly recommend and extol the virtues of Unitarian Universalism, wouldn't some BGLT folks be interested in learning where (if?) there are congregations, associated with the religion they were raised within, that are just as welcoming? Just a thought.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

You do make a good point, Bicker. However, part of the support for same gendered marriage is debunking the myths and exposing the lies that support propaganda, eh?

No matter. It's far preferable to have a supportive thread, than an argumentative one.

With regard to the 'house of worship' question, I agree. I think it would be good information for the gay community to know what ones are open to their joining as respected members.

 

[bicker]

You do make a good point, Bicker. However, part of the support for same gendered marriage is debunking the myths and exposing the lies that support propaganda, eh?

Absolutely; I'd love to read messages along the lines of, "Critics claim XXXX. That's bogus because..."

No matter. It's far preferable to have a supportive thread, than an argumentative one.

I was thinking about this on the way in... of course, I'm sure we all agree that there is a place for both. I think sometimes you get tired, though, of the argumentative threads, once they get pointless. (I think Kathy used the word, "circular" instead, but same difference.)

 

[eliza61]

I'm in

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Yes, Kathy was correct too. The other thread was just so much going in circles and all that causes is dizziness.

I think it is important to understand the criticisms of others to better enable the formulation of an explanation to address the criticism.

That is why you will often see me ask for the input of others. Unfortunately, I've yet to learn that many people like to criticize, and very few like to think about readjusting their thoughts based on new data.

 

[Laura]

This is absolutely one of the biggest civil rights issues of this generation.

It absolutely is.

People don't seem to realize that in most of the country heterosexuals have been given privileges by their home states' constitutions that are not granted to homosexuals. That goes against the 14th Amendment. There are those who say that marriage is not a right listed in the US Constitution, but the Constitution is not there to list every right that we have. There are "inalienable rights", such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are specifically listed in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but the absence of the phrase from the Constitution does not mean that those rights don't exist for all Americans. To deny a homosexual couple access to the legal marriage benefits my husband and I enjoy is to deny them their right to pursue happiness.

This will not be solved by voting in individual states. This needs to go to the Supreme Court like Loving v. Virginia. It is a very similar "basic civil rights" argument.

 

[bicker]

This is absolutely one of the biggest civil rights issues of this generation.

While I agree that this is an important issue, I don't think it is necessarily the "biggest" civil rights issue of this generation. Let me emphasize that that is not because this issue is, in any way, small, but rather because other issues are simply a little bigger. A lot of that is just a matter of percentages. Some civil rights issues directly affect substantially larger sections of the population.

However, I think the main point is that this isn't a competition: All civil rights issues are "on the same team"... or at least should be AFAIC. This issue, while it surely needs to be (and as I said before, I want it to be) addressed and supported on its own merits, it is part of a larger "movement" (so-to-speak) toward securing all civil rights that are immorally withheld.

There are those who say that marriage is not a right listed in the US Constitution, but the Constitution is not there to list every right that we have.

I think part of the problem, often, is in how the attention span of the American public forces us to assert rights.

I know it seems pedantic, but there is a big difference between asserting that there is some right to be married versus some right to have the analog of every single capability, privilege, entitlement, credential, power, etc., that heterosexuals have. For example, one (of many) "problems" with withholding the right to marry from homosexuals includes the fact that some states would put parents instead of homosexual partners as next of kin, in terms of making medical decisions for someone who cannot make such decisions for themselves. That is (one instance of) injustice, built simply on the (easy to defend, IMHO) unequivocal right to live one own's life in accordance with one's own beliefs and values. However, unfortunately, such distinctions are viewed as pendantic, and very easily dismissed from public consideration on those grounds, alone.

So we're left with trying to assert rights based on (very sound) premises that we cannot discuss as part of the defense of those rights (because they'd be dismissed as pedantic). Critics regularly exploit this, a national weakness -- the inability for Americans to invest sufficient depth of understanding into an issue that does not directly affect them.

 

[Goofyluver]

You do make a good point, Bicker. However, part of the support for same gendered marriage is debunking the myths and exposing the lies that support propaganda, eh?

Important point, darlin'.

It's important to maintain an open dialogue in order to honestly portray the quest for equality in the LGBTQ community.