Johnny Weir v. former Olympic Gymnast, Peter Vidmar

[Sparks]

It feels like some of you guys not only want us to be like okay yes gay marriage should be allowed, but also to literally change our religions teachings. I can't help wonder what's next. I just feel this type of thing is going to only further strengthen the divide between the religions/non religious in this country.

No. Literally? You are not being asked to change your religious beliefs. And you should not ask anyone to change theirs. You don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have a gay marriage. That simple. Marriage b/n 2 consenting adults doesn't hurt you. Leave it alone.

[bek]

Which is a great argument for supporting gay marriage.

Unless, of course, you would just accept it if the predominant religion decreed that Catholics couldn't marry.

Thats why I'm inclined to let gay marriage happen civally and I'm not really into the protesting. I'm inclined to let the State define marriage the way it wants to define it. And have my Church define marriage the way it defines marriage. But I'm just not so convinced this will stop at States define marriage one way, Churches/another. Not convinced at all.

No. Literally? You are not being asked to change your religious beliefs. And you should not ask anyone to change theirs. You don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have a gay marriage. That simple. Marriage b/n 2 consenting adults doesn't hurt you. Leave it alone.

Where did I say I was asking anyone to change theirs. But it absolutely feels that people are asking some people to change their opinions. If Vidmar said I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but okay with the state defining civil unions/marriage the way it wants. I'm not convinced everyone will be okay with that. I'm quite convinced there would be some who would still have issues with Vidmar having personal issues.

Reading some of the posts here it goes quite beyond "why can't people just let us live our lives the way we want" and more into people are crazy for just not agreeing.

[Prancer]

Thats why I'm inclined to let gay marriage happen civally and I'm not really into the protesting. I'm inclined to let the State define marriage the way it wants to define it. And have my Church define marriage the way it defines marriage. But I'm just not so convinced this will stop at States define marriage one way, Churches/another. Not convinced at all.

I don't know why not. Churches now refuse to marry divorced people, interracial couples, interfaith couples, people who don't belong to their parishes, etc. They have that right as private entities. Why would gay marriage be any different?

[bek]

I don't know why not. Churches now refuse to marry divorced people, interracial couples, interfaith couples, people who don't belong to their parishes, etc. They have that right as private entities. Why would gay marriage be any different?

I just fair it might not be that society is getting in general to politically correct. And really the main thing is traditional views/being marginilized.

I was going to ask whats next a school teacher getting fired for stating their beliefs about marriage. But then I thought about it, and I thought how I probably really wouldn't want to get into that subject at all with my students, if I was a teacher, because I wouldn't want any students to feel excluded. I.e that I cared about them less, respected them less because of their sexual orientation etc. So I can see that point with Vidmar.

[VALuvsMKwan]

I just fair it might not be that society is getting in general to politically correct. And really the main thing is traditional views/being marginilized.

I was going to ask whats next a school teacher getting fired for stating their beliefs about marriage. But then I thought about it, and I thought how I probably really wouldn't want to get into that subject at all with my students, if I was a teacher, because I wouldn't want any students to feel excluded. I.e that I cared about them less, respected them less because of their sexual orientation etc. So I can see that point with Vidmar.

Politically correct about denial of civil rights?

BTW, thanks for the last paragraph - but extend your reasoning involving students a little further, if you will. How do you think any 2 people wanting to be in a committed relationship feel when denied the same rights and privileges as 2 other people in the same situation, solely because of their being of the same gender and different orientation from the second couple?

Would the word "excluded" come to mind, at the very least? One hopes so.

ETA: After reading Allen's response, just one more thing...

When any change to allow gay marriage affects, in a negative way, your choice on whom you want to, and are able to, marry, or anything else about how you personally are able to exercise your religious beliefs, come back to me and, to quote Julia Sugarbaker one more time, THEN we'll talk.

[Allen]

It feels like some of you guys not only want us to be like okay yes gay marriage should be allowed, but also to literally change our religions teachings. I can't help wonder what's next. I just feel this type of thing is going to only further strengthen the divide between the religions/non religious in this country.

I honestly don't care about your religious teachings or how you feel about gay marriage. I just don't want anyone to infringe on the right for gay people to marry in this country. The people who believe that gay marriage is wrong based on religion, fine, but don't impede on the lives of others because your own religious belief. No one needs to change their beliefs, they just need to live and let others live. And before someone says it, allow gay people to marry is not impeding on anyone's religious beliefs. Why? Because what anyone does in their own personal life that doesn't harm anyone or isn't illegal is no one else's f*cking business.

[Prancer]

I just fair it might not be that society is getting in general to politically correct. And really the main thing is traditional views/being marginilized.

You want to treat others as you want to be treated. You don't want to be marginalized for your traditional views. And yet, you are only inclined to think civil gay marriages should be allowed.

A school teacher might be fired for expressing views on marriage--if that teacher works in the public schools. A teacher at a private religious school would not be, if her beliefs about marriage follow the teachings of the school's religion.

Society might be getting more "politically correct," but why would you think that churches would suddenly have to be?

[genevieve]

I was going to ask whats next a school teacher getting fired for stating their beliefs about marriage.

That's already happened (although he has gotten his job back)
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx...=1&Category=26

[dinakt]

I honestly don't care about your religious teachings or how you feel about gay marriage. I just don't want anyone to infringe on the right for gay people to marry in this country. The people who believe that gay marriage is wrong based on religion, fine, but don't impede on the lives of others because your own religious belief. No one needs to change their beliefs, they just need to live and let others live. And before someone says it, allow gay people to marry is not impeding on anyone's religious beliefs. Why? Because what anyone does in their own personal life that doesn't harm anyone or isn't illegal is no one else's f*cking business.

Yes.
Eliminate discrimination, and then anybody in the privacy of their homes has a right to believe what they want to believe. But when the discrimination exists, an active (sic!) advocate for that discrimination should not represent a very diverse group of people. Some of those people are the ones whose rights he wants to squish.

[bek]

Politically correct about denial of civil rights?

Your assuming that marriage is an ultimate right. I'm not sure marriage IS. Society still determines who can and cannot get married. Which is why in some states I'm allowed to marry my First Cousin, and some states, I am not. Why shouldn't Mormons and Muslims be allowed to have more than one wife/ How fair is it for Muslims who come into this country who have multiple wives, that only one wife gets recognized. Aren't the other wives being excluded?
To be quite frank if anything I think our country should make it more difficult for folks to get married-just in general.

Because what anyone does in their own personal life that doesn't harm anyone or isn't illegal is no one else's f*cking business.

Marriage isn't just as "personal thing" The institution of marriage involves a form of public acceptance.

You want to treat others as you want to be treated. You don't want to be marginalized for your traditional views. And yet, you are only inclined to think civil gay marriages should be allowed.

There are a lot of things I'm only "inclined to think" should be allowed. I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't think there was a reason for the rules and that society would ultimately be better off if it was following them. Do I accept though that I live in a multipluralistic society and that its way better to accept other people and live in peace then to fight yes. And do I also understand that in the end you have to give people free will to make their own choices and not dictate them-yes that too. And do I also see how perhaps my religion has been in the past unkind and uncaring to those who differ from us and we need to be better about that yes.

[heckles]

Someone who posted in the comments section of the article made a great point:

"'The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality'
Undeviating? Oh really? 100 years ago the 'Church' said a man could have as many wives as he wanted and that was perfectly moral. Why is it that the Church of Mormon can change its definition of marriage but the rest of society cannot?

The LDS church has changed many beliefs and deleted unpopular texts, but not on the righteousness of polygyny. Doctrine and Covenants 132, the scripture Joseph Smith wrote, still tells women they will be killed by God if they don't graciously submit the polygyny. Polygyny is still taught as a goal in Mormon seminary classes for teenagers, with the caveat that the mean ol' federal government doesn't allow it. Male followers are currently instructed to wait until death, when they're each awarded their own planets on which they become gods, to practice polygyny.

[genevieve]

Do you mean polygamy? Polygyny sounds like breeding women with multiple vaginas.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Polygyny is the correct term I believe. I think Polygamy is an umbrella term that means multiple spouses but has been used in the common vernacular to mean one man with multiple wives. Polyandry is one woman many husbands, which makes sense in places like Tibet where land was split up between sons but with limited land, it made sense for brothers to share one wife.

Bek, I was going to try to give a response to you about the differences between allowing gays and lesbians marry their respective partners and polygamous relationships based on equal protection arguments and the fact that disallowing consenting homosexual adults is putting an undue burden on one population but not another, but I am too tired to formulate a response. Maybe I'll try back tomorrow.

Also, one could make an argument that marriage did not start out as a religious institution but became one through time and that we do have marriages conducted through civil courts as opposed to churches so religious arguments should not be the basis as to why one segment of the population should be denied the right to marry. And it is a right, at least under the law as it exists. Also, since marriages are considered civil contracts under the government (and they use the term marriage), then any sort of religious argument against it should not be relevant as the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause which states that government cannot establish a religion and the only real arguments against gay marriage are religiously-based.

Then there is the issue of trying to frame it only about marriage and how being against gay marriage does not automatically mean one is necessarily anti-gay. I argue that as nice as one may be to gay people or tolerate their "lifestyle" or acknowledge that members of the LGBT communities actually exist, supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment. To me, that's a form of hate, even if it's not vitriolic.

[Allen]

Then there is the issue of trying to frame it only about marriage and how being against gay marriage does not automatically mean one is necessarily anti-gay. I argue that as nice as one may be to gay people or tolerate their "lifestyle" or acknowledge that members of the LGBT communities actually exist, supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment. To me, that's a form of hate, even if it's not vitriolic.

I agree 100% with everything you said here.

[CynicElle]

I argue that as nice as one may be to gay people or tolerate their "lifestyle" or acknowledge that members of the LGBT communities actually exist, supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment. To me, that's a form of hate, even if it's not vitriolic.

ITA. Sorry, but if you campaign and donate money to take away a civil right from a group of people, you don't get to turn around and claim you have no problem with that group of people. But if you do claim that, you shouldn't be all that shocked and surprised when people from that group say "That's nice, but we've got a big problem with you."

Good for Johnny for speaking up about this.

[genevieve]

Polygyny is the correct term I believe. I think Polygamy is an umbrella term that means multiple spouses but has been used in the common vernacular to mean one man with multiple wives. Polyandry is one woman many husbands, which makes sense in places like Tibet where land was split up between sons but with limited land, it made sense for brothers to share one wife.

Thanks that makes sense it still looks funny

...supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment.

this cannot be stated enough.

[attyfan]

I just fair it might not be that society is getting in general to politically correct. And really the main thing is traditional views/being marginilized.
...

Just because views are traditional doesn't mean that, sometimes, they should be marginalized. Once upon a time, "traditional" views would have prevented me from working as an attorney, simply because of my gender.

More to the point, IMO, there is no justification for singling out gay marriage as if it were the only marriage-related issue in the world. For example, the New Testament frowns on people re-marrying after divorce (absent adultery see Matt 19:9). That the state allows these re-marriages shows that the "traditional" views don't count for much. If a church wants to be "traditional", it should do so consistently; since the state has already decided that it will not be traditional, then traditional views should not be used just to single out gays.

[Proustable]

bek, no I'm not okay with them saying gays can have civil unions but not marriage. For one thing, they are in fact two different things and in some states have differing impact of benefits, spousal support, adoption, etc.

If there was no such thing as a legally binding marriage, I would be fine with it. Also, I'm Canadian, so this battle's already over here and the world hasn't ended.

Traditional views really aren't being marginalized here. Society is never going to decree a marriage between a man and a woman as illegal or harmful. In fact, it really irritates me when I hear things like this because it's so passive aggressive.

VIETgrlTerifa: thank you. In the end, hate comes in more than one form.

[Allen]

The attitude that gay and lesbians should not be allowed to marry in order to preserve someone else's ideas of morality is laughable to me. Do these people really think that highly of themselves that because they feel gay marriage is wrong that over a million people in this country should not be allowed to marry? I think it's high time that people get over themselves and realize that forcing their opinions on the lives of others is just as wrong as having their view marginalized. Regardless of what your religious view is, there is no proof that a gay person getting married is going to affect your life in any way.

[Coco]

ITA. Sorry, but if you campaign and donate money to take away a civil right from a group of people, you don't get to turn around and claim you have no problem with that group of people.

Thank you!!!