Gay Marriage Is a Non-Issue
Article Tools
-
2
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
Lo and behold for I have the answer that will make both sides of this debate victorious and happy. All spineless politicians please read – You can make the decision and not lose votes.
Alright I’m really, really, really tired of hearing about this crap. I swear if I hear the phrase “Gay marriage” one more time I’m just going to kill. I haven’t decided who yet but it’ll probably be some rainbow wearing, hair gelled, boy toy. If I can’t find one it’ll be some guy with a bible in his briefcase and a sense of masculinity so small I need an electron microscope to see. Seriously guys, this isn’t difficult even in the slightest and I’m really tired of having one side or the other scream at me for support.
Here’s the answer. Any religious group can marry who they want, when they want and how they want. They also get a free book on world culture so they realise that marriage ceremonies are universal and none of them have the copyright on the phrase. If they don’t want any gays getting married then they don’t have to see them get married. They’re happy.
The government gets to marry everyone in some public office and whatever tax benefits or certificates that come with it go to the two people, or three people, or four people or however many people getting married. The government does what it’s supposed to be doing and serves the people, all the people.
“Well how in the heck does this work, boy?” Well I’ll tell you. Getting married by a priest, a witch, a shaman, a spirit possessing a chicken or even a damned rock in your cult of choice means absolutely nothing outside that cult. Your gods can recognise or forbid whatever marriage they want to and you can all be as bigoted or as coated in happy fairy dust as you like. As far as society as a whole is concerned it doesn’t mean anything though. On the other hand when a government does a marriage then it is strictly business without a hint of religious connotation.
So now the religious folks can be happy that their organisation isn’t forced to do anything they don’t want to and every gay man and woman can marry each other until they’re blue in the face. And the government is officially kicked out of the church once and for all. Really people, was it that hard to see the middle ground? Is this solution that out there? Of course I could send this proposal off to any government official I want. The truth is no one cares any more than I do about this brainless non-issue. Everyone is having too much fun be outraged or oppressed and either way bitching about it to no end. For some reason it seems that as soon as this issue comes up every government official who could make a decisions loses whatever fragments of a spine they had.
But the answer is there. Anyone and everyone with six brain cells or more can see how perfect it is. Now please stop talking to me about it. This crap is taking up time that I should be spending pointing out the government’s flaws. Ask me about something else. Maybe abortion? I haven’t heard about that issue in a while. Or ask me about Obama and if I think he’s an evil communist or not. Something!
If you’d like to hear my opinion about anything in particular then go ahead and ask me in the comments below.
6 Comments
This issue is a bit more complex than your perfect solution. One of the main concerns of the church is that we will be sued for refusing to allow gay marriages in the church, and our clergy sued for refusing to perform the ceremonies. There have already been civil servants forced to resign over this issue. Gay people don’t just want to be married in our churches, they want the church’s stamp of approval. This is something we who believe that the Bible is God’s word cannot allow. Homosexual behavior is clearly labelled as an abomination by God. The church is not a democracy, and we don’t vote to decide which parts of the Bible we will obey and which parts are no longer accepted in the court of public opinion.
Where did he say that the church was a democracy? If anything he said the government should step out of religion.
Mr. CPurcell never said that homosexuals should be married in your church, I think he was saying that you have the right in your own religion to believe whatever you want but you shouldn’t stop others from getting married somewhere else. My interpretation was that he said that gays should have the rights to civil unions, or if a religion would marry them they should be able to do that and have it recognised.
Do gay canadians sue their churches to force them to marry them?
Personally I’d not want to be married somewhere where the person marrying me thought I was an abomination
Hi CP, how are you?
Right up front, I just want to say this: I don’t believe that homosexuality is right. I don’t believe that gays and lesbians should have the privilege to relabel marriage to suit their purposes. But that’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it.
However, I can and do look on this issue in an unbiased fashion: I am willing to accept any explanation as to why they should have the privilege. And even if I do not concur with such an explanation, I am willing to pass by a gay couple down the street and say, “Hey, how ya doin’?” Although I do not support what they’re doing, I am willing to accept the persons as they are. In fact, I am willing to defend their right to. Sin does not define people, attitudes do. You see, the real issue is not a minority one; the real issue is the freedom of choice. Any government who is willing to deny any minority the freedom to choose on such an issue is a government that should be overthrown. So, why should gays & lesbians (a minority group who choose to believe what they want) have the right to tell Christians (a minority group who choose to believe what they want) what to believe, or vice versa? The federal government has no right at all, assumed or granted, to decide one over the other. So, Christians, as narrow-minded as most of them can be, still have the right to choose for themselves what they want to do. Why should a minister be forced to marry a couple if he or she doesn’t want to? Besides! There are other ways to be married! The legal system, after all, is the body that hands out the marriage licenses.
People believe as they choose, that is not up to anyone but the individual. No minister can or should be forced to perform an act they themselves do not believe in. Therefore, a judge who is truly unbiased in the issue will dismiss any such law-suits. Therefore, if no minister wishes to perform the marriage of a gay or lesbian couple, then gays and lesbians should find another route to the covenant of marriage, not harrass ministers who have just as much a right to choose as they do. After all, even though Christians have voiced their opinions, not all of them put down gay or lesbian people.
With all due respect, CP, in your title you say that Gay marriage is a non-issue, and then, in your two-sentence forethought, you say you have the answer that will make both sides victorious. Because of these statements I was led to believe that this would be an unbiased article. However, as soon as we start reading the actual body of your work here it is obvious that this is not free of prejudice, that this is more of a personally vindictive blog against politicians who have trouble deciding what the majority of their constituents want. If your intent was to avoid controversy, then you’ve not succeeded. You would have been much better off writing letters to your local MPs.
I agree wholeheartedly that the answer is right in front of everyone’s nose! But, you see, people are too riled up over the issue to see what’s right in front of them. That’s why prejudiced letters will not help, because they will only add to the mixture of feelings. Most people are too short-sighted already, without having more angry letters thrown at them.
In regards to the relationship between the church and the government: the church itself may not be a democracy, but to think that it is not governed by one is to deny what is right in front of you. The common person does not realize how mired in politics the church really is. Ministers are not led to their positions as divinely as they once were. They are chosen by the people. There has been a system in place to oversee the church’s activities ever since ministers had to have a degree to preach. Their rights as ministers to preach on the relative issues of the world have been conditioned to suit the purposes of the governments. In essence, they are told what they can and cannot say in church. Even the Bible has been modified!
Being a Christian and believing what the bible has to say about God is not about pointing fingers at the world and saying: “Look, SIN! Eradicate it!” The bible is a message of love, pure and simple love, regardless of the sin in the world. Jesus didn’t say to the blind man “leave me you blind beggar, I’m better than you”. On the contrary: Jesus helped the blind man to see, gave him a gift out of love.
Anyway, I apologize if this response is longer than your own writing; I happen to have a strong opinion on this issue too. Thanks for sharing.
Well it has recently come to my attention that my proposal above is already in place in France. Way to go, French people!
In my own experience I have never met a homosexual who wanted to get married in a church. I can understand that: I sure wouldn’t want to be married by a priest who was condemning me the whole time. If there are any of them out there then they’re being a little too unrealistic and need to think again.
Now let me make this abundantly clear to everyone who may have missed it the first time: I AM NOT PROPOSING ANY RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS ORGANISATION CHANGE. Now if any one seems to think otherwise then allow me to be blunt: You don’t have more than six brain cells. I said it and maybe I offended people but I really don’t have time to argue with people who aren’t willing to listen to my proposal or think. You are not a big enough fish for me to fry.
Now if you actually were paying attention you will see that I am in favour of the Church NOT marrying any people it does not want to on the basis of religion. Allow me to point out a hypocrisy it is to state christianity is about love and then to call homosexuality an abomination but that’s not the topic here so I’ll move on. Whatever my thoughts on the church (and for the most part, I’m a big fan of the catholic church in particular) mean as little as the church’s thoughts about government marriage. Which is exactly what I’ve said the whole time.
Gays marry in government = Yes
Gays marry in a church = No
You see why everyone is happy? Gays get the right to marry – something there is no reason outside religion to deny them. – and Christians can go on hating them with their love. And anyone who is thinking they need to scream “marriage is religious!” then you need to just sit down and be quiet. No religious organisation has a claim to the word marriage or even the concept. Marriage was around before you your God even had a stake in the world. Societies and religions globally and throughout time have had marriages in a plethora of forms and meanings.
Are we clear now? Do you understand what I’m saying at last? Let me state it one more time. I DO NOT WANT TO FORCE ANY RELIGIOUS ORGANISATION, INCLUDING THE CHURCH, TO DO SOMETHING IT FEELS IS AGAINST IT’S RELIGION. And if anyone is trying to relabel “marriage” to suit them then it’s the church.
Now that we’re clear you might still want to call me prejudiced but you know what? This issue has a right and a wrong and anyone trying to deny legal marriage rights to homosexuals is just wrong. It’s cut and it’s dry, it’s black and it’s white: There exists no solid argument against it and I wish we could all move on.
And to specifically address Stickinthemud: I’m a little fuzzy on what your point was. You don’t seem to have disagreed with me except on a few points. Namely you seem to be under the impression that the church has a copyright on the word marriage. This is incorrect as explained above. Secondly you seem to be under the impression that my article is flawed because it’s unbiased. Because I’m arguing for equal rights? Well yes, I suppose it is biased. In the same way Britain was biased when it argued “No, Germany should not be invading Poland.”
Ditto on Karen Gross’ comments!!! Also, do you think Obama is an evil communist?
I am someone you hear rarely about- a Christian who is pro gay marriage. Frankly, in terms of religious beliefs, I believe God made them the way they are for a reason, and that we should never be against love, which these homosexual individuals have for one another, which is just as valid as hetero love.
But! Religious decisions aside, I completely agree with Purcell that it’s not the government’s business to interfere in the private life, especially the marital one, and shouldn’t interfere with deciding whom is allowed to marry who.
Religion on the other hand is a private belief in a social sphere, and if a priest or religious leader doesn’t want to marry someone in that context due to their beliefs, that’s one thing. There are priests and ministers out there, however, who would have no compunction with marrying two gay individuals together (I know quite a few of them)
So the issue shouldn’t be, as it is currently, whether someone thinks homosexuality is evil, but rather whether as a society, we believe in equality for all people to show a commitment to one another’s love.
As an end note, something I find myself saying all too often: If you’re against gay marriage, don’t get one!