« Angry Fat Changes | Main | Money well spent? »

Can anyone be "areligious"?

Yeah, it's not a word, keep reading...
Now I've never though of myself as a radical, nor have I thought of myself as a conservative. That's merely some background to set this rant in the right mood.

Recently I recieved an email calling for me to go online and enter my vote in a poll. It was from a friend who has been known to send some emails that could be considered sectarian or theistic in nature. The poll was severely sociopolitical and makes quite a call of a religious nature: it was, basically stated, are you for or against homosexual marriages.

It took me a little while to think, and I think my final thought and response to my friend was this: religiously I cannot see any reason to acknowledge a homosexual marriage, but for that matter the bible would seem to be fairly against in most scripture. If you were in such a relationship why would you want a "church service" when the basic tenets of that belief see your lifestyle as abberant?? But for me, I could see the reasons for a political union to allow sharing of certain rights that heterosexual couples enjoy: shared benefits, tax advantages, etc....

Here's where the rant starts......Why on earth do people get soooo upset over issues like this? I hate seeing people picket certain venues because a person is homosexual. I've moved out of hate central (Kansas and you know what I'm talking about if you've been to Topeka), but I still see people picketing at certain events and in front of public buildings. Ok, fine, your religion says that homosexuals are damned and their lifestyle is an abberation. Tell them once, then walk away. The visiting speaker usually isn't there to talk about their sexuality, they're talking about science, politics, or personal experiences that have nothing to do with that part of their life. Believe me, they know how you feel. I'm heterosexual and I've heard it all before and I've gotten the skinny of the message, it's hate, wrapped up in a religious package...

And again, why is this a religious or an ethical decision for the president and lawmakers? I seem to remember a promise to the seperation of church and state. We removed the ten commandments from a city hall, we've tried to take God out of the pledge! So then, why would a civil "marriage" or binding be based on religious beliefs? True, you can never be a seperate entity from your religious self, but there has to be some sort of faith seperation if you are a government representative.

You can be apolitical.....can you be "areligious"?


This is yet another instance of an attempt to legislate morality. There are people in power out there that have their morals offended by the idea of a homosexual relationship. Therefore, they try to legislate it away. It has been going on for years and will continue to happen. Sounds like I have a new topic for a post...

I think a lot of the furor is brought on by the gay community itself. I have never seen a hetrosexual pride parade but.. I am old fashioned and I admit it but my views have been tempered over the years. Sexual preference is a personal thing and should remain as such and special priviledge because of preference is crazy.


True, you don't see straight pride parades. You do see huge weddings that serve a similar purpose. Marriage is not only a religious thing, it is also a legal contract between two people. If it weren't then the court system would not have to be involved in a divorce.

I agree that sexual preference is a personal choice, but I also think that because someone is gay they should not be excluded from entering in to any type of contract because it offends the morals of certain people is ludicrous.

I also agree that while having a parade to demonstrate your sexuality is pushing the issue. While some state that just because you have a different sexuality, you shouldn't be entitled to special priviledges, that is the exact argument for allowing same sex marriages. The civil ceremony, or license, that would recognize a same sex union, allow the same rights as a "traditional" marriage is something that would bring a homosexual couple up to equality. It is not a "special" priviledge, it is just a regular priviledge that should be allowed. Separating church and state, what would be another argument for not allowing a same sex union? There really isn't one.

but you know, marriage isn't always a religious thing. heterosexuals do get married in non-religious and legal-only ceremonies. it happens all the time.

but i do agree that allowing homosexual marriages is not a special priviledge, but a regular one. the reason so many homosexuals are pushing for their unions to be recognized under the law is because of the legal benefits of marriage, not any so-called religious ones.

Post a comment