I found this map, I don't live in NH (Florida but family might move), whats going on in New Hampshire regarding Transgender people (I'm trans)lellololes t1_jder6ly wrote
Reply to comment by vexingsilence in I found this map, I don't live in NH (Florida but family might move), whats going on in New Hampshire regarding Transgender people (I'm trans) by Inannazami
Same sex marriage is something between two people. Allowing them to get married does not affect anybody else in any way whatsoever. How is that "forcing their beliefs" on anyone else?
You may or may not have the same belief of what marriage is as another person, but you are also not being forced in to marrying anyone at all.
I do not understand how some people can claim this is a logical argument.
Person A says marriage is between a man and a woman
Person B says it is between two people
If person A doesn't regard person Bs marriage as valid, it does not affect them at all.
Well, I think that many people with religion are wrong. Now, forcing my belief (or lack thereof in this case) upon them would be to say that they can not practice any religion. But I believe in the freedom of religion, so while I may not agree with your personal beliefs, I am not imposing them on you.
Those are precisely the same argument.
If you're religious, your church can marry whoever it wants to and not be willing to marry whoever. I don't care about that. If you are a member of a church that only recognizes heterosexual marriages, that's fine. People that aren't can simply go somewhere else and get married.
vexingsilence t1_jdesnsy wrote
> How is that "forcing their beliefs" on anyone else?
I imagine many would see it as an erosion of the concept of marriage, since we're talking about beliefs. Next up, polygamy, incest, etc. At some point the word and the concept is meaningless. Personally, I think we should just get government out of it altogether. Document who you want to be able to visit you if you're in the hospital, who gets the kiddos, etc.
​
>Now, forcing my belief (or lack thereof in this case) upon them would be to say that they can not practice any religion.
Try having prayer time in a public school.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdeu8xm wrote
No, marriage is a state institution. If it had been separated and there were no sanctioned benefits from being legally married and it was exclusively a religious union it would be a different discussion.
vexingsilence t1_jdew558 wrote
Marriage isn't exclusively a state institution. I don't believe there's any law that says you can't call yourself married unless it was a state recognized marriage. Just because the state latched on, doesn't mean it's not a matter of belief for many people.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdeybe9 wrote
There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon, not to force the religious concept of marriage to include nontraditional concepts. Implied rights are easier given than relinquished, so we can't just remove all state sanctioned benefits of marriage to promote equality.
The Church is still able to deny facilitating the marriage in the eyes of God. It is worth noting that with the decreasing participation in organized religion, it has become increasingly tolerant (on the whole) of marginalized groups which is a trend I expect to continue.
vexingsilence t1_jdgooiu wrote
>There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon
Right, which as I said elsewhere, could have been handed over to individuals to determine for themselves. Custody of children, medical proxy, inheritance, and so on. Would be a lot more flexible to not even have a concept of marriage and just let people determine these things as they wish. Maybe designate a default person if one doesn't want to spend time on it. But nah, lets double down on this concept of marriage so we can clog the courts with an ever increasing number of divorces and family squabbles.
But again, this was about pushing beliefs. If I remember right, NH had civil unions before marriages. But that wasn't enough, because.. it was a different term. The left wanted to enforce the belief by using the same term, there was no other reason to push at that point. It had the same legal recognition and rights.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdgy71g wrote
No, there were and are legal distinctions between civil union and marriage defined at the federal level
vexingsilence t1_jdi11tk wrote
This was many years ago, but as I recall, the feds were accommodating civil unions.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdjq1ww wrote
Irrelevant as were are significant benefits granted by the state by marriage that are not extended to civil unions.
vexingsilence t1_jdlfsaj wrote
English not your first language?
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdlue0h wrote
It is actually. Are you from NH originally? Our schools are usually pretty good about teaching critical thinking skills, but I suppose you could have been homeschooled or something.
lellololes t1_jdew1zh wrote
>I imagine many would see it as an erosion of the concept of marriage, since we're talking about beliefs. Next up, polygamy, incest, etc. At some point the word and the concept is meaningless. Personally, I think we should just get government out of it altogether. Document who you want to be able to visit you if you're in the hospital, who gets the kiddos, etc.
Slippery slope logical fallacy, irrelevant. Marriage the legal construct is basically a restricted version of your stated preference. The touchy Feely stuff about the "erosion" of marriage is the sort of argument used against allowing all adults to vote without restriction. Every time rights are expanded, some of the already privelidged class react against that expansion of rights.
Prayer in a public school also shouldn't be an issue. It shouldn't be happening except on an individual level. Separation of church and state and all that. For those parents who would prefer that there is prayer in school, how would they feel if the school forced their child to participate in a prayer from a different religion? Now, what accommodations should schools offer to students that have different religious beliefs - there is room for debate there.
If the parent wishes for their child to experience prayer in school they can send them to a private religious school. I understand that there have been gray areas on this topic - school is an entity that collides with the rest of the world at times after all, but the majority of cases of prayer in schools are very much a separation of church and state issue.
vexingsilence t1_jdgoaqf wrote
>The touchy Feely stuff about the "erosion" of marriage is the sort of argument used against allowing all adults to vote without restriction.
We shouldn't allow all adults to vote. It's the right of citizens, you're only allowed to vote in each election once, you have to be voting in the correct location, etc. Talk about a slippery slope, you built your argument on one apparently.
​
>Separation of church and state and all that.
No such thing. The state can't demand that you be religious, but it doesn't have to run screaming away from religion either. Christmas as a federal holiday, anyone? But this is just an example of the lack of awareness that beliefs are pushed from both sides, not from just one side as was alleged. Can't have God in school, that's offensive therefore my belief that there is no God is more important than other people's belief that there is or might be!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments