Gay Marriage page 90

3390 posts

Flag Post

What would happen if say a church said that a man must marry a man.
Would that fall under freedom of religion?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by bjjdude:

What would happen if say a church said that a man must marry a man.
Would that fall under freedom of religion?

They’d run into problems if the state doesn’t allow it, but they can certainly hold the ceremony and recognise it internally as absolutely valid.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by bjjdude:

What would happen if say a church said that a man must marry a man.
Would that fall under freedom of religion?

They’d run into problems if the state doesn’t allow it, but they can certainly hold the ceremony and recognise it internally as absolutely valid.

I agree (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) with vika here. Marriage is a religious thing. If government said my marriage was invalid, I’d find that slightly humorous, and just ignore government. Since when did we allow government do decide what is and what isn’t a legitimate marriage?
 
Flag Post

I personally also advocate the abolishing of government sanctioning marriage, and allowing anyone to enter a relationship contract with anyone else that provides tax and lifestyle benefits. That way people can go have their fucked up acknowledgement of the creator in their love, and I can visit my future wife in the hospital without needing the government’s approval.

 
Flag Post

I don’t advocate the government giving stuff to people because of who they choose to marry, or have sex with, or visit in the hospital.

 
Flag Post
Religion isn’t what makes these people homophobic, but it’s literally the only reason they have given. The part isn’t the whole, and no one’s saying they are. There isn’t one non-religious reason that makes any legal sense.

I basically agree with this. homosexuality has been publicly condemned in the US since at least the early twentieth century (before that, there simply wasn’t enough of a sub-culture to be an issue), and it’s only recently become a religious matter, since, as you say, it’s an effective vehicle for political mobilization. I think someone like jhco actually comes a lot closer to what unadorned homophobia looks like – he’s the last guy i’d call a christian moralist. He just thinks it’s…dirty, repugnant, etc. He thinks the same thing about miscegenation, which hasn’t been an issue for christianity for ages. He’s a secular homophobe. In that sense, he’s at least one-up on the other homophobes who falsely try to hitch their wagons to the Christian Right, via some obscure passage in deuteronomy.

the part I don’t agree with is that ‘no one is saying this’. Obviously people are saying it. I care nothing for christians being criticized if it’s done fairly. But attacking christianity simply because it’s what people are using to express their dislike of homosexuals is retarded. Jaume did that; many others have also done it.

 
Flag Post

I don’t know, I think of respecting someone else’s religion to be a courtesy, but not a requirement for being respectful. That is, I don’t pick fights with theists reading their bible in public or even someone saying something religious to me. It is when people prop up their beliefs as an argument, or cite their religion as evidence that they are no longer going to receive that luxury from me. I’ll humor your claim that your wife is beautiful, but when the beauty of your wife is the reason you’re saying I shouldn’t marry my wife, or some other bizarre imposition, I’m probably going to insult your wife’s beauty by disagreeing with you.

Religious people believe specific things without any particular evidence, and this is true whether you’re homophobic or not. Because of that, it’s likely that the idea of theism itself is going to get attacked, since a faith based belief is being used to validate an objective argument for everyone. There’s a kind of religion that doesn’t do this, but those people really shouldn’t be offended by those who profess the legitimacy of their projecting personally held beliefs being admonished for it.

 
Flag Post

People believe specific things without any evidence for it. Atheists seem to believe the world would be better if religion were safely tucked away in some little corner, out of sight. They have no evidence for this because there is no historical precedent for it. They might be right. But there is probably more evidence to say that it would be deeply destructive, than to say that we’d all be much better off.

Also, claims to objectivity are retarded. We are not mathematicians, and we are not discussing algebraic problems. Neither of us can be ‘objective’. We can, at best, be aware of our own biases. That’s all.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think we disagree? I certainly appreciate religion and partake in many religious activities, including philosophy and service. I do not want to abolish religion, I just don’t humor a religious person arguing something social or scientific as if their beliefs are demonstrable answers and not interpretations of moral parables that take personal and world insight to fully actualize.

Personal values are important and useful, but shouldn’t be applied to others. There are many rules and beliefs that I hold very strongly that I would never expect anyone else to live up to, simply because they haven’t experienced what I have, and don’t have the same beliefs as myself either. Religious people seem to be perfectly willing to hold others to their personal expectations, and when they do, I am ready to address it, and it’s going to be disrespectful by it’s very nature of being a personal argument.

 
Flag Post

I think where we disagree is that you seem to think that in the public sphere, in matters of government deliberation, religious reasons for doing x action are invalid. And it would apply to a forum discussion like this as well. There is where I disagree. I think, if you want to disrespect their religious beliefs for why they want x, you should of course be able to…but you won’t persuade them. and despite the advent of neo-atheism, I think disrespecting their religion in the public sphere will not be persuasive to many others, either, and not simply because elected officials also depend on religious voters.

Of course, it may be that you have no choice but to be disrespectful, whether it’s public or private discussion, and that’s just the reality of the situation – people will get offended if you seem to trample over their beliefs, no matter how well-meaning you are. A sunni orthodox friend was telling me the other day how he was invited over to a friend’s place. This friend was married, and his wife wore the veil. My friend was curious about her and wanted to ask her questions about politics, global warming, etc, but was forced to ask them through his friend – he couldn’t speak to her directly, and when he tried, they were both offended. I think, in a case like this (and it comes up in politics too), it is the fault of the religious person for having beliefs that are too constrictive and too thin-skinned to tolerate deviation from the norm. but it’s not like he was being deliberately offensive, or sweeping aside their beliefs as irrelevant. If you’re deliberately being disrespectful, you’ve no one to blame for their hostility, or from those disinterested parties observing, but only yourself.

I should point out, it’s obviously difficult to try to reason with people who only have parables to offer. I find as annoying as talking to communists who offer up samples of the dialectic as ‘proof’. But I try to do it, anyway, because it offers more avenues of discussion than the usual ‘evidence or you’re an idiot’ ballgame.

 
Flag Post

Your clarification is enlightening. I don’t think I’m against religiously inspired arguments, as long as they’re made correctly. For example: “It says this is wrong in my bible” is inadequate. “There is a parable from my religion that teaches how this can be bad, and it informs my thinking” is a perfectly valid and in some cases, persuasive argument.

The bible’s admonition of lenders is awesome because it explains why taking advantage of people who clearly don’t have the money to pay interest is douchey. Likewise, I was a far more selfish person than I am today until I read about Jesus washing the feet of John, and how service to others is one of the most divine acts to a Christian.

There are absolutely things to be learned from religion, it’s just that they aren’t objective, scientifically or ethically, and to say they are is when the belief becomes impossible to, as you mention, not offend. I can’t argue with someone saying that a particular parable informs their life, but I can argue with their assertion that it should inform mine without any reason or illustration as to why.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Okay, the term Natural Law has NOTHING to do with science. It is a religious term. My goodness, I can’t get through to you. It applies the moral laws that nature should abide by.

If it is a religious term, then it is entirely down to your own little religion’s point of view, and not at all objective. That was made even more clear by the phrase “It applies the moral laws that nature should abide by.

So long as you accept that nature does not actually abide by any of these laws, and is constrained solely by natural laws regardless of what you think should be constraining it, everybody is happy.

You should have made clear that your version of ‘natural law’, is not the same thing as the natural laws that govern this universe. It would have saved much exasperation on both sides.

No it is not, the moral law stand with or without religion. I say “should” because you have a choice whether or not to follow these standards. I do apologize for not particularly clarifying Natural Law.

 
Flag Post

Yes, i’d agree with all that. I think you probably gained more from christian parables than I ever did.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by bjjdude:

What would happen if say a church said that a man must marry a man.
Would that fall under freedom of religion?

They’d run into problems if the state doesn’t allow it, but they can certainly hold the ceremony and recognise it internally as absolutely valid.

I agree (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) with vika here. Marriage is a religious thing. If government said my marriage was invalid, I’d find that slightly humorous, and just ignore government. Since when did we allow government do decide what is and what isn’t a legitimate marriage?

There are two kinds of marriage: religious and legal.
One of the main reasons why we are having that whole discussion on gay marriage is because people think of them as one thing.


Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

No it is not, the moral law stand with or without religion. I say “should” because you have a choice whether or not to follow these standards. I do apologize for not particularly clarifying Natural Law.

I have a choice. Why do you want to take it from me?

Then again, why should something that is as poorly defined and inherently subjective as your natural law be made into a law everyone should have to respect? If I remember correctly you said that condoms violate that natural law as well.

 
Flag Post

I don’t advocate the government giving stuff to people because of who they choose to marry, or have sex with, or visit in the hospital.

Why? You’re given money (in some countries) based on whether you take up a study, whether you live in a place other than your parents’ house, when you have children, and when you buy stuff better for nature. Do you advocate any of these or do you also think they shouldn’t be there?

No it is not, the moral law stand with or without religion. I say “should” because you have a choice whether or not to follow these standards. I do apologize for not particularly clarifying Natural Law.

You’ve specifically ignored my post, so I’ll try a different one.

“Natural law” implies much, much more than how you’re defining/describing it. Currently, it’s not more than a horrible personal opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Originally posted by Azolf:

None of these arguments ever change.

State recognized religious marriage violates the separation of Church and State. Marriage is traditionally a religious institution. The State should leave the definition of marriage to individual churches and only acknowledge civil unions.

Everybody’s got this whole issue totally backwards.

So wait…hang on…the state shouldn’t allow any marriage because it’s based on religion? Right? And that religion is not allowing equal rights? Right?

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that marriage in the eyes of God and community is a personal thing. The government has no right to define what it is or isn’t. Let individual churches and communities decide what marriage is to them, and let the government use some other blanket term to identify couples. The government has no right to define marriage.
This isn’t about lifestyles or intolerance, it’s about government control, and the imposition of a redefining of sacred terms that mean different things to different people.
Most people really don’t care what people do unless it tries to cross their doorstep.

 
Flag Post

The government has every right to define marriage if the government is involved. Are marriages a legally defined partnership with certain powers and privilleges given by the state to those in the marriage? The answer is yes. So government is involved, if you don’t want government involved then don’t have your marriage made legal by the government. It is the governments responsibility to ensure equality for everybody, and it matters not that some group thinks they have ‘ownership’ of a word.

 
Flag Post

So, a pastor, priest, or witch doctor waves his hands; the bride and groom say a few vows, and the government honors a religious ceremony as legally binding. The government should have stopped recognizing marriages in 1791 as a part of the first amendment. Anyone who supports a government enforced redefinition of marriage AND the first amendment is a hypocrite.

 
Flag Post

3 of us entirely agreed with you, so reign that one in.

 
Flag Post

Long day. Hot topic. Apologies.
It’s really unfair that we’ve allowed the media to brainwash us into thinking there are only two points of view on subjects like these, myself included.

 
Flag Post

On a sidenote, I don’t think it’s fair to assume “religion” made up the term marriage. People did.

 
Flag Post

I support the government allowing the same rights to homosexuals as what is given to heterosexuals. Religion has no ownership of how marriage should be defined in a secular society. And Christianity has no right to tell people that their particular tradition of marriage is the correct one…many religions have different concepts of marriage.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

When it comes right down to it, we can show that the ‘Intact Biological Family’ is best, or we could say, necessary, for best case health of children. Whereas there is no such need for gay marriage. There has been much work to show that the two institutions are similar, which lead to the peculiar instance that gay parents are just as good, but, this never made sense on its face, as there was never such an assertion regarding single parenthood or step families obtaining similar success to the ‘Intact Biological Family’. Recent study indicates this should have been obvious conclusion and also harsh criticism of those existing studies that conclude gay marriage outcomes are similar (such as advertising or cherry picking for their sample).
Better study showing conclusions contrary to gay marriage advocate assertions (also lots of good information for people studying family structures in general, such as children of divorced parents):
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640
Harsh criticism of existing positive studies:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

 
Flag Post

Beegum…when it comes right down to it…it’s about equality.
There is no need to discriminate against homosexuals.