Is there an argument against gay marriage that isn't faith based?

[pqr]

The fact that this is such a hotly debated issue in the US and on these message boards I think suggests pretty darn strongly that traditional marriage is not an obvious example.

 

 

So you argue that the traditional family is not a societal good? Most of the debate has argued that other forms may also be of benefit, I have not seen much argument that the traditional family is a negative. As such I stand by the statement that There are also "many things that were the way they were for eons that" are right. Marriage and the traditional family would be an obvious example.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not sure I understand your argument. If there are a lot of people who are one way then we have a good reason for granting them certain rights. But forget about the minority they are obviously aberrations? You seem to be assuming that predominance equals correctness.

 

certain rights --absolutely.

 

but the OP was asking whether there is a secular argument against legalizing gay marriage. Observing how things work over the course of time in nature can be a compelling secular argument. It doesn't have to be one that you agree with, ;) but it is certainly based on something other than faith and religious traditions.

 

and as erica pointed out:

 

If something has been a certain way for a long time, and if it has had a strongly positive effect on society (as marriage undeniably has), then there should be a compelling reason to change it, and careful consideration should be given to the possible ramifications of doing so. In this thread, not to mention the larger discussion in our society, I have not heard a compelling reason that convinces me that is in the best interest of society to change marriage to include same sex couples.

 

eta: nobody is "forgetting about" people who want to act outside the norm -they are simply not being allowed to take advantage of some societal perqs.

[Haiku]

If you are agruing for tearing the fabric of society

 

I'm not arguing for this because I don't believe allowing gay people to marry tears society's fabric, and I find it somewhat amusing that people are so threatened by and frightened of gay people establishing legally recognized unions.

 

Over and out!

 

Tara

[pqr]

I'm not arguing for this because I don't believe allowing gay people to marry tears society's fabric, and I find it somewhat amusing that people are so threatened by and frightened of gay people establishing legally recognized unions.

 

Over and out!

 

Tara

 

 

Look what it has done to the Episcopal Church (which includes people who are members of society) and ask yourself that question again.

 

Look at what has happened in California over the last proposition and ask yourself that question again.

 

Late here in Europe Good Night

Edited August 7, 2009 by pqr

[stripe]

Here's an argument one could make that is not religious but "practical": the / a goal of life is to produce as many offspring as possible to perpetuate the species. Therefore everyone should be heterosexually married at a young age and begin to produce children in rapid succession. In other words, there is no time for non-"fruitful" activity. Homosexual sexuality does not lead to children, therefore is not worth participating in.

 

(I do not subscribe to the premise that the goal of life is to spawn children, myself, but it is an argument.)

 

Regarding the question posed about my post about Ancient Greeks:

So are you saying that sexual relations are only acceptable within marriage, whether or not that is a hetero- or homo- sexual marriage?

I am not saying anything about the acceptability of sexual behavior. I was merely asking (sincerely!), if Ancient Greek men (i.e. men from ancient Greece, not rather than Greek men of a certain age) were so passionate about young men, then why didn't their society ever embrace homosexual marriage? I don't know enough about the Greeks to say. They obviously felt it was important for a man to marry a woman as part of the child-producing process. There are other cultures that don't, including many in modern American/European societies.

 

What possible argument could be made against two people being happy and not hurting anyone else?

Is happiness enough to exempt behavior from further moral consideration? I don't know; I find father/daughter incest and brother/sister incest to be repugnant, and I also object to the man who asked the cannibal to chop off his male organ and eat it. Edited August 7, 2009 by stripe

[theresatwist]

1.Switch and bait....The topic is MARRIAGE and most Americans even in California oppose this.

2.Nevertheless it is still twisting a definition.

3. You have not adequately addressed this issue. In a point form please explain by what basis you would twist the definition of marriage to include two men or two women and not allow three men, six women, a mother and son, a grandfather and granddaughter. In each case they could argue consenting adults, love, meaningful relationship blah blah blah (none of which I accept by the way)

4. Legal implications would tear churches apart (as we currently see in the Episcopal Church) impose additional costs on companies, and many other things and this is for the better? Wow!

 

No, I'm talking about the rights of gays in society not in the Church. I don't care what the Episcopalian Church or any other church does. They are private. I'm talking about how gays are treated from a legal perspective. The Civil Rights Movement caused a bit of mess was it not worth it? Just because you don't believe in a cause doesn't mean that those folks who do don't have the right to fight for it. I don't agree with the Tea Parties that took place, but I would never say that those people were causing an unnecessary disturbance. They are just exercising their rights as I exercise mine for other issues. What happened in California is part of everyday life in society. We have arguments and back and forth legal cases over more issues than I could possibly list. However, I might note that homeschoolers have gained and expanded their rights largely through similar court battles and back and forth.

 

Additional costs for companies? I say, so what? Frankly not allowing gays to marry (in the form of civil unions) because you don't want extra costs for companies sounds discriminatory to me. If companies didn't give Christians or Jews or Blacks or homeschoolers or left-handed people benefits that would cut costs too. Your discomfort with a group does not constitute adequate reason to exclude them. Think about how much extra money goes into providing handicap accessible facilities in all public buildings. Should we get rid of those. Gay people do not choose to be gay any more than handicapped people choose to be handicapped.

 

I don't believe I would be "twisting" the definition of marriage. I believe I would be expanding it to include a group of people who should have been included long ago. The church, as I have said, can keep whatever view of marriage it likes. I believe in freedom of religion. Marriage could be defined as a union between two people who are not biologically related.

 

From a Newsweek poll: "Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships...Despite the recently approved state measures, public opinion nationally has shifted against a federal ban on same-sex marriage. In 2004, people were evenly divided on the question, with 47 percent favoring a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage and 45 percent opposing one. In the latest poll, however, 52 percent oppose a ban and only 43 percent favor one. When respondents were asked about state measures, the numbers were closer: 45 percent said they'd vote in favor of an amendment outlawing gay marriage in their states, while 49 percent said they'd oppose such a measure."

 

P.S. I think you mean bait and switch. I'm not that crafty. My concern is with civil unions. I'm not a member of the church and therefore have no business meddling in their affairs. I am a member of American society however.

Edited August 7, 2009 by theresatwist

[Spy Car]

1) Unnecessary societal schism? No. What seems unnecessary to you, may seem necessary to others. A majority of Americans now support civil unions. Does a majority supporting something make it right? No, not necessarily. But you could argue that it's the dissenters who are now causing the schism, not the supporters of civil unions.

2) Twists the word and cultural norm? You seem to see cultural norms as being static. I see them as being dynamic. Being too attached to norms strikes me as dangerous. There are plenty of old cultural norms out there that we've since departed from that I bet you wouldn't want back.

3) Opens the door to other kinds of marriage? I think I've addressed this question in about 15 different posts. I haven't heard any real rebuttals.

4) Has huge economic and legal implications? Yup. I believe they would be for the better.

 

:iagree: Great post! :001_smile:

 

Bill

[elizam]

Just my 2 cents...

 

Regardless of faith - it doesn't seem natural. Male and female fit together like a puzzle and are meant to work together...

 

Now - I'm not saying I'm against it or that I have any kind of problem with it - that's their business and thier choice...

 

That is all :001_smile:

 

That is what my mom always says, and she is not a believer of any faith.

[Sara R]

I didn't say heterosexual marriages were 100% faithful; I said that most people go into marriage with the expectation that they will be. I said that the studies I've read say that that expectation isn't there with male homosexual couples. I also assert that the sheer number of partners is vastly different between male homosexuals and heterosexuals. You aren't asserting that the average heterosexual person has had 100-500 partners, are you?

[jenadina]

Actually, I can think of several purposes: 1) population control - not every person capable of resproducing would do so, 2) the benefits of marriage would apply to a wider range of people (they would reap the same benefits as heterosexual people, 3) it would provide a larger ratio of care providing (adults willing and able to provide care - aunts, uncles, grandparents, parents, etc.) adults than a strictly heterosexual arrangement allows. That's just off the top of my head.

:iagree:

[theresatwist]

I didn't say heterosexual marriages were 100% faithful; I said that most people go into marriage with the expectation that they will be. I said that the studies I've read say that that expectation isn't there with male homosexual couples. I also assert that the sheer number of partners is vastly different between male homosexuals and heterosexuals. You aren't asserting that the average heterosexual person has had 100-500 partners, are you?

 

I have no idea how many partners that average heterosexual person has. But I doubt that a person who wanted to have many partners would be interested in having a civil union anyway. Really all I was trying to say is that I think there is also a substantial gay and lesbian population out there that is interested in commitment.:001_smile:

[Melinda in VT]

I have no idea how many partners that average heterosexual person has. But I doubt that a person who wanted to have many partners would be interested in having a civil union anyway. Really all I was trying to say is that I think there is also a substantial gay and lesbian population out there that is interested in commitment.:001_smile:

 

:iagree:

 

Why should gay couple who want to make a commitment to each other be denied that right because other homosexuals don't?

[mirth]

My answer to the OP's question is yes.

 

If insurance were revamped such that companies got no tax breaks for offering insurance, and everyone had to pay to play, do you think there would still be a big drive for gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter) in our society today? Suppose the gov't just offers the equivalent amount of tax breaks to the citizenry themselves instead of to the companies ... Instant Portability!

 

I don't see why a family who has 1 child pays the same premium as a family with 6 children at every co my husband or I have ever worked for. This seems ludicrous. IBM is different about this, I know but we've never worked there. I don't see why deeply discounted coverage for a spouse or civil union partner should be extended on the basis of relationship to the employed (and insured!). Since the rate of divorce is 50%, the idea of promoting marriage through the golden handcuffs of health insurance is obviously not working as well as hoped.

 

Marriage is a sacrament -- not a coupon code that lets you buy health insurance really cheap.

Edited August 7, 2009 by mirth

[Desert Rat]

This is a good point. I consider myself "married" even though I wasn't in a church. I have a piece of paper saying I'm legally bound in marriage. So, because someone gets hitched at a JP, does that mean they can't tell their friends, "We're married!" Do they instead have to say, "We're legally unioned!" Ah, semantics.

[Deidre in GA]

My answer to the OP's question is yes.

Marriage is a sacrament -- not a coupon code that lets you buy health insurance really cheap.

 

 

religious marriage is a sacrament. civil marriage is not and it confers rights and privileges that all citizens should have access to. our country was founded on the separation of church and state; it's about time we separated the concept of a religous ceremony from a civil act.

 

as a lesbian, i find it interesting that most of the stated objections to marriage equality in this thread have been based on assumptions about gay men. what are lesbians - chopped liver? oh, btw, i had a terrific, loving childhood.

 

:Angel_anim::Angel_anim:

Edited August 8, 2009 by Deidre in GA

[johnandtinagilbert]

PiCO....if a homosexual couple wanted to get legally married in a church, do you think the couple could force a church to host a wedding? I mean, if the couple wanted to get married in XYZ Church, and the church didn't believe in homosexual marriages, would the pastor be obligated to perform the ceremony? Or would it be discrimination if he didn't?

 

Any thoughts?

 

No, they could not force a church to host a wedding any more than a couple where one partner is divorced can force the Catholic Church to provide them with a religious wedding or a couple who is living together, where the bride is pregnant or that wants to serve alcohol at the reception could force a Southern Baptist minister to marry them in the church. A minister is free to turn down anyone for any reason, including that he doesn't like their choice of music, he doesn't believe in interracial or interfaith marriages, or he disapproves of what they plan to serve at the reception. A Justice of the Peace, however, would not be able to refuse to provide a *civil marriage* to any couple legally allowed by state law. The laws on who can marry whom vary a lot by state. In some states, first cousins can marry under certain conditions, allowable age (especially if the bride is pregnant) varies a lot, etc.

 

Actually, the legal issues are not a bar now to religious marriages for same sex couples, depending on the specific denomination of the specific faith (and sometimes the specific clergy member). There are many clergy who are providing religiously binding weddings for same sex couples and have for years. The ministers in those cases simply cannot confer *legal* status to that union and the over 1000 federal and state legal benefits and recognitions that come along with it. Also, just because a marriage is legal does not mean that it is going to be recognized religiously---for example the case of a couple where one was divorced who married civilly and the Roman Catholic Church.

 

In performing a wedding a minister is acting in two capacities--one as a representative of his/her religious organization and one as a representative of the state. The marriage, including heterosexual marriage, is only legally binding if the minister is properly authorized and recognized by the state in which the marriage takes place to be allowed to act as a civil servant in that capacity. Rev. John Smith of XYZ church of Illinois, for instance, may be able to both legally and religiously marry Joe and Suzy in Peoria, but, unless he goes through any required proper channels to get SC state approval, could only religiously marry them in Charleston---they would need a separate civil marriage to be legal. Conversely, Rev. Smith could perform a religious wedding for Jane and Ellen or Doug and Greg in Peoria all day long, but it wouldn't make them legally recognized.

 

 

 

It's on the way. Don't be surprised when it happens http://euobserver.com/9/28522

[johnandtinagilbert]

I think it's important for this conversation to point out that *they already do*. They are *already* free to either provide or deny religious services to anyone that they so choose, regardless of legal standing. I see no reason to believe that changing the legal status of same sex marriage would change this. I am not aware of any legal precedents for any religious organization being required to provide specifically religious services against their will.

 

 

 

Sounds reasonable to me.:)

 

Again, things change quickly and this may well be in the works already. Article

[theresatwist]

My answer to the OP's question is yes.

 

If insurance were revamped such that companies got no tax breaks for offering insurance, and everyone had to pay to play, do you think there would still be a big drive for gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter) in our society today? Suppose the gov't just offers the equivalent amount of tax breaks to the citizenry themselves instead of to the companies ... Instant Portability!

 

I don't see why a family who has 1 child pays the same premium as a family with 6 children at every co my husband or I have ever worked for. This seems ludicrous. IBM is different about this, I know but we've never worked there. I don't see why deeply discounted coverage for a spouse or civil union partner should be extended on the basis of relationship to the employed (and insured!). Since the rate of divorce is 50%, the idea of promoting marriage through the golden handcuffs of health insurance is obviously not working as well as hoped.

 

Marriage is a sacrament -- not a coupon code that lets you buy health insurance really cheap.

 

Yes, marriage absolutely should not be reduced to insurance benefits. Yet sadly it seems there are many folks out there who use the cost (in dollars and cents) of legalizing civil unions as an argument against legalizing it.

 

I am one of the people who has been lax with terminology. My parents marriage was technically a civil union, but I've always said they are married. To me civil union is just a term for a marriage officiated by a judge, or someone in government rather than a clergyman.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, marriage absolutely should not be reduced to insurance benefits. Yet sadly it seems there are many folks out there who use the cost (in dollars and cents) of legalizing civil unions as an argument against legalizing it.

 

 

actually, this is a perfect argument for taking the gvt OUT of health insurance, period, not vice versa. ;)

[theresatwist]

Again, things change quickly and this may well be in the works already. Article

 

What threatens the church's current views is changes in how the majority of society views civil unions, and gays and lesbians in general. A change in law would simply be an indication that that is happening. (And it is.) I think in a few decades our descendants will say, "Of course, gays and lesbians should have equal rights!" the same way our children say, "Of course blacks and women should have equal rights!" and yet a few generations ago you were in the overwhelming minority if you thought that way. Ultimately I think the church is going to have to either change its views or will become much smaller. Younger generations overwhelmingly support civil unions.

[theresatwist]

actually, this is a perfect argument for taking the gvt OUT of health insurance, period, not vice versa. ;)

 

You know, Peek a Boo, you are clever. I'll give you that. I also still think you're wrong.:001_smile:

[johnandtinagilbert]

Just doing some soul searching and looking for some input. TIA!

I think you have received a fair assessment on both sides of the issue, but I ponder something more...can you vote "for" something that clearly goes against your Christian faith?

 

OP, my perspective aside, Romans 1 is clear on God's stance on homosexuality.

 

I often have a hard time separating value* stance and political decisions. Does the OP's ?? simply boil down to standing up for your moral convictions or deciding what is fair in our legal system? Can a person who is deeply committed to their religious teachings make that separation?

 

*value meaning the teachings of your religious sect

 

As a community servant for our City I've had to follow the letter of the law even when it didn't jive with my religious convictions, but I never had to create a law that went against my religious convictions.

[Peek a Boo]

You know, Peek a Boo, you are clever. I'll give you that. I also still think you're wrong.:001_smile:

 

LOL! That's ok --me being right isn't dependent on your assessment ;)

[Peek a Boo]

What threatens the church's current views is changes in how the majority of society views civil unions, and gays and lesbians in general. ...... Ultimately I think the church is going to have to either change its views or will become much smaller. Younger generations overwhelmingly support civil unions.

except that article is about denying religious liberty, not whether civil unions can exist outside a church. One can support the idea of a legal civil union and still support the right of the church to not condone it.

 

I have no doubt that the church will become much smaller --it's revealed in the storyline. ;)

[johnandtinagilbert]

What threatens the church's current views is changes in how the majority of society views civil unions, and gays and lesbians in general. A change in law would simply be an indication that that is happening. (And it is.) I think in a few decades our descendants will say, "Of course, gays and lesbians should have equal rights!" the same way our children say, "Of course blacks and women should have equal rights!" and yet a few generations ago you were in the overwhelming minority if you thought that way. Ultimately I think the church is going to have to either change its views or will become much smaller. Younger generations overwhelmingly support civil unions.

 

In reference to the article, I find it all rather ironic. Group #1 wants inclusion or the ability to operate according to their beliefs, even when at the expense of not allowing Group #2 the freedom Group #1 so richly desires. Kinda goes back to the our rights counter your rights catch 22 mentioned here last week.

 

Not being snarky, just observant, when I was the younger generation, I thought very differently than I do now :)

 

For facts sake, I agree with your post, the part highlighted. I think this will happen. As a believer of the Bible, I expect it to :)

[johnandtinagilbert]

except that article is about denying religious liberty, not whether civil unions can exist outside a church. One can support the idea of a legal civil union and still support the right of the church to not condone it.

 

I have no doubt that the church will become much smaller --it's revealed in the storyline. ;)

it's like the world is running in circles :willy_nilly: about liberty and yet our liberties get slimmer all the time...just my observation.

 

and as for the storyline...great minds, Peek, great minds.

[theresatwist]

except that article is about denying religious liberty, not whether civil unions can exist outside a church. One can support the idea of a legal civil union and still support the right of the church to not condone it.

 

I have no doubt that the church will become much smaller --it's revealed in the storyline. ;)

 

I don't think legalizing civil unions means the church will be forced to change its views. What may well force the church to change its views is the force behind the change in law: changing/evolving public opinion. I don't think that's denying religious liberty. The church has survived and continued to thrive only because it has changed with the times. Religions that refused to do so (or sects that refused to do so) over time have died out. In that case the church would be responding to a changing society as would the government. I would see those as parallel developments that do not have a causal relationship. I think it would be a denial of religious liberty is the government were to force the church to recognize civil unions. I think that is very unlikely. (I also would oppose the government doing that...believe it or not.) Of course, if you think the Obama administration is heading toward dictatorship you may think differently. :001_smile: But as long as we have a democracy and the Christian Right maintains its incredibly strong political organization that seems unlikely to me. (Note the lack of a such a strong Christian Right political force in Western Europe is a key reason not to assume that what has happened/is happening is Europe will happen here.)

Edited August 8, 2009 by theresatwist

[Peek a Boo]

I don't think legalizing civil unions means the church will be forced to change its views. What may well force the church to change its views is the force behind the change in law: changing/evolving public opinion. I don't think that's denying religious liberty. The church has survived and continued to thrive only because it has changed with the times. Religions that refused to do so (or sects that refused to do so) over time have died out. In that case the church would be responding to a changing society as would the government. I would see those as parallel developments that do not have a causal relationship. I think it would be a denial of religious liberty is the government were to force the church to recognize civil unions. I think that is very unlikely. (I also would oppose the government doing that...believe it or not.) Of course, if you think the Obama administration is heading toward dictatorship you may think differently. :001_smile: But as long as we have a democracy and the Christian Right maintains its incredibly strong political organization that seems unlikely to me. (Note the lack of a such a strong Christian Right political force in Western Europe is a key reason not to assume that what has happened/is happening is Europe will happen here.)

 

yeah....as long as.

 

And as you noted earlier --and we both agreed-- younger people are embracing ideas that are NOT "Christian Right," the Church is likely to dwindle, and we will lose that majority, so our democracy will continue as the EU does. it seems simple enough to me.

 

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

This is not about Obama --I'm sure we would be headed this way under a R or D administration. :glare:

[theresatwist]

yeah....as long as.

 

And as you noted earlier --and we both agreed-- younger people are embracing ideas that are NOT "Christian Right," the Church is likely to dwindle, and we will lose that majority, so our democracy will continue as the EU does. it seems simple enough to me.

 

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

This is not about Obama --I'm sure we would be headed this way under a R or D administration. :glare:

 

Do we actually agree? Scary. Maybe the world is coming to an end after all.:lol:

 

(I at least agree with 90% of what you said here. I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "so our democracy will continue as the EU does.")

[Peek a Boo]

Do we actually agree? Scary. Maybe the world is coming to an end after all.:lol:

 

(I at least agree with 90% of what you said here. I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "so our democracy will continue as the EU does.")

 

that 10% makes quite a bit of difference ;)

 

what i mean is that since we can reasonably argue that YES, the younger generation are embracing ideas that are not in alignment w/ the "Christian Right," then we can also reasonably argue that the Church [along w/ the Christian Right] will dwindle till they are no longer in the majority, so via democracy we will see a similar steering of cultural/legal policies and loss of religious liberties as the EU is experiencing NOW.

[phathui5]

My EX (who's gay) was molested by his father. His father (also gay) was molested by an older cousin.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Thinking about it, I know of more gay folks in our circle of friends who were sexually abused than ones who weren't.

[swimmermom3]

Although self-identified homosexuals for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

 

Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other types of relationships.

 

 

 

Perhaps it depends on where you live?:001_huh:

[johnandtinagilbert]

that 10% makes quite a bit of difference ;)

 

what i mean is that since we can reasonably argue that YES, the younger generation are embracing ideas that are not in alignment w/ the "Christian Right," then we can also reasonably argue that the Church [along w/ the Christian Right] will dwindle till they are no longer in the majority, so via democracy we will see a similar steering of cultural/legal policies and loss of religious liberties as the EU is experiencing NOW.

 

I don't think legalizing civil unions means the church will be forced to change its views. What may well force the church to change its views is the force behind the change in law: changing/evolving public opinion. I don't think that's denying religious liberty. The church has survived and continued to thrive only because it has changed with the times. Religions that refused to do so (or sects that refused to do so) over time have died out. In that case the church would be responding to a changing society as would the government. I would see those as parallel developments that do not have a causal relationship. I think it would be a denial of religious liberty is the government were to force the church to recognize civil unions. I think that is very unlikely. (I also would oppose the government doing that...believe it or not.) Of course, if you think the Obama administration is heading toward dictatorship you may think differently. :001_smile: But as long as we have a democracy and the Christian Right maintains its incredibly strong political organization that seems unlikely to me. (Note the lack of a such a strong Christian Right political force in Western Europe is a key reason not to assume that what has happened/is happening is Europe will happen here.)

 

except that article is about denying religious liberty, not whether civil unions can exist outside a church. One can support the idea of a legal civil union and still support the right of the church to not condone it.

 

I have no doubt that the church will become much smaller --it's revealed in the storyline. ;)

 

Religious liberty is already being slowly taken. Wasn't a church leader in Canada arrested last year for "hate crimes" for teaching against homosexuality? I know I read it, I'll have to find where. Anybody remember this?

Religious Tolerance is being strongly "encouraged" by the EU. Tony Blair was heading an EU board/group/commission (whatever they called it). Religious leaders from many denominations want to make it illegal to have church doctrine that claims absolute truth. If that's the case, churches will be forced to change. It's coming. The evidence is presenting itself, just not on CNN, Fox or any other American station.

I admit I only know pieces of the puzzle. My husband is the one who finds all this stuff and points it out to me. Amazing what is going on behind closed doors. Not being able to preach absolute truth will completely change the face of the Christian church and I *think* the Muslim teachings as well. Food for thought.

[KarenNC]

Again, things change quickly and this may well be in the works already. Article

 

This article is referencing Europe, not America. We are discussing an issue related to a change in specifically American law. European countries have a very different dynamic in regard to the official position of (at least certain) churches than does America (though not for lack of trying on the part of some specific groups:)).

 

It also appears to be reflecting the concern of Catholic bishops in the UK about possible extrapolation of the practical application of a proposed directive prohibiting businesses and employers from discriminating in employment, vocational training and provision of goods commercially available to the public on the basis of age, sex, religion, ethnic origin, disability and sexual orientation. Their main complaint appears not to be the intent of the law, but a desire for somewhat clearer language in it.

 

I can see where they would like some clearer language included in the directive (I've thought the same about a lot of proposed US legislation). However, this is a far, far cry from the implication (in the context of this discussion) that this legislation specifically states and intends that a same sex couple should be able to force any religious organization to provide them with a marriage ceremony that will be considered religiously binding under the tenets of that religion.

[Peek a Boo]

This article is referencing Europe, not America. We are discussing an issue related to a change in specifically American law. European countries have a very different dynamic in regard to the official position of (at least certain) churches than does America (though not for lack of trying on the part of some specific groups:)).

 

bingo. It would seem naive to assume that what happens in the rest of the world can't or won't happen here. Esp when we are following in their footsteps to institute quite a few similar changes that can result in the dynamics looking quite a bit alike.

It also appears to be reflecting the concern of Catholic bishops in the UK about possible extrapolation of the practical application of a proposed directive prohibiting businesses and employers from discriminating in employment, vocational training and provision of goods commercially available to the public on the basis of age, sex, religion, ethnic origin, disability and sexual orientation. Their main complaint appears not to be the intent of the law, but a desire for somewhat clearer language in it.

 

um, they want clearer language to make the intent clear. The Catholic church is only one of many that is speaking out, but they tend to be the most vocal ;)

 

I can see where they would like some clearer language included in the directive (I've thought the same about a lot of proposed US legislation). However, this is a far, far cry from the implication (in the context of this discussion) that this legislation specifically states and intends that a same sex couple should be able to force any religious organization to provide them with a marriage ceremony that will be considered religiously binding under the tenets of that religion.

 

in terms of watching how human legislation evolves on a global scale, this is NOT a "far far cry" for churches that are looking ahead to the future. i guess it could be a "far far cry" if one expects to be dead before seeing this type of legislation passed, but that's not exactly fair for our posterity.

[KarenNC]

bingo. It would seem naive to assume that what happens in the rest of the world can't or won't happen here. Esp when we are following in their footsteps to institute quite a few similar changes that can result in the dynamics looking quite a bit alike.

 

I don't "assume that what happens in the rest of the world can't or won't happen here". In fact, in the area of same sex marriage, I do hope that we will follow a number of other countries in legalizing that. To clarify the intent of that remark ;), I meant that there are a number of groups in America who would dearly love to see the establishment of an official state-sanctioned and supported religious body, as exists in many other countries, and, further, to have our laws based on the teachings of that particular religion (not that all the groups have the same religion in mind, though). I sincerely hope that is not something that will happen here.

 

um, they want clearer language to make the intent clear. The Catholic church is only one of many that is speaking out, but they tend to be the most vocal ;)

 

The Catholic Church was the only one referenced. Yes, I agree that they want the specific intent more clearly spelled out. Until that happens, one cannot state that the intent is to require churches to provide religiously binding same sex marriages against their will.

 

in terms of watching how human legislation evolves on a global scale, this is NOT a "far far cry" for churches that are looking ahead to the future. i guess it could be a "far far cry" if one expects to be dead before seeing this type of legislation passed, but that's not exactly fair for our posterity.

 

I stand by my statement. Until and unless the specific intent is spelled out to legislatively force religious bodies to provide religious (not secular) services to individuals against their will (which is what was being discussed in the posts related to this on this thread), that one cannot assume that that is the indeed the intent. The bishops are perfectly right to ask for a clarification of the intent.

[Peek a Boo]

I meant that there are a number of groups in America who would dearly love to see the establishment of an official state-sanctioned and supported religious body, as exists in many other countries, and, further, to have our laws based on the teachings of that particular religion (not that all the groups have the same religion in mind, though). I sincerely hope that is not something that will happen here.

I also hope that is not what will happen, but when we continue to do the same things that are leading to loss of liberties in other countries, it seems logical to expect the same results [loss of liberties].

 

The Catholic Church was the only one referenced. Yes, I agree that they want the specific intent more clearly spelled out. Until that happens, one cannot state that the intent is to require churches to provide religiously binding same sex marriages against their will.

The purpose of sharing the article was not to show that churches are being forced to provide same sex marriages, but that churches are losing religious liberties, which leads to the state-sanctioned situation you were referencing above [and legal consequences]. It's a foot in the door. and a really big one, too.

 

I stand by my statement. Until and unless the specific intent is spelled out to legislatively force religious bodies to provide religious (not secular) services to individuals against their will (which is what was being discussed in the posts related to this on this thread), that one cannot assume that that is the indeed the intent. The bishops are perfectly right to ask for a clarification of the intent.

 

and i stand by the historical examples of encroaching legislation against personal and religious freedom. It's on its way.

[theresatwist]

that 10% makes quite a bit of difference ;)

 

what i mean is that since we can reasonably argue that YES, the younger generation are embracing ideas that are not in alignment w/ the "Christian Right," then we can also reasonably argue that the Church [along w/ the Christian Right] will dwindle till they are no longer in the majority, so via democracy we will see a similar steering of cultural/legal policies and loss of religious liberties as the EU is experiencing NOW.

 

 

Okay here's the 10% (at least): I don't see it as a loss of religious liberties when the church changes or modifies a view/way in order to keep up with the times. The church has always done that. I believe the church could choose not to change. There will be societal pressure, but societal pressure doesn't force you to do anything. It simply makes it more work to defend yourself--miserable as that may be.

 

Okay--I just noticed that you just had the same argument with Karen. I agree with Karen....

[dragons in the flower bed]

I wanted to add something else... this might be like a TMI sort of thing, it's kind of... nasty... but

 

Insurance providers will be happy to learn that stimulation of the prostate gland lowers the risk of prostate cancer.

[dymphna57]

http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH

 

You can disagree, but I always get wary when they won't let you discuss.

[KarenNC]

http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH

 

You can disagree, but I always get wary when they won't let you discuss.

 

I'm sorry, who is not allowed to discuss what?

[Peek a Boo]

Okay here's the 10% (at least): I don't see it as a loss of religious liberties when the church changes or modifies a view/way in order to keep up with the times.

 

The loss of liberties is when the change is forced by the gvt, not willingly from the church-- that's what the article was about.

[dymphna57]

I was multi tasking and got a bit too cryptic. I think that the American Psychiatric Association doesn't seem to invite discussion on this issue. I have good friends who describe themselves as homosexual and i worry about the health risks. Some of them definitely fall into the category of having difficult to horrible family histories. I have other friends with other risky life choices for similar reasons so i am not trying to say anything but that my experiences do support the supposition that it may not be something that we want to encourage and promote. I would like to be able to see more professional discussion rather than what is now going on.

 

My arguements are based on some of my conclusions . First, I don't think that there isn't enough support for the "fact" that this is a permanent condition and yet is seems to be a given in this discussion.

Second, I think the fact that homosexuals are at greater risk for depression and suicide isn't just because they don't feel accepted by society. Lastly, I don't think that marriage is really considered a binding contract anymore with no fault divorce and perhaps we need to consider our terms. What is a marriage? I think that perhaps being in a civil union should become a more common term and marriage reserved for a strictly religious ceremony.

 

I do not think children raised by same sex couples is an equal experience to being raised by a heterosexual couple. I am sorry for any pain this causes many of the people who disagree with my conclusions. I will continue to read and study this issue .

[theresatwist]

The loss of liberties is when the change is forced by the gvt, not willingly from the church-- that's what the article was about.

 

That's what happened in Europe. I thought we agreed though on reason why that is extremely unlikely to happen here. Frankly, I think it is very possible that gay civil unions will be legalized within the next ten years (my personal prediction) and that that will become a new rallying point for the Christian Right actually STRENGTHENING them considerably. Roe vs. Wade did that and I bet legalizing gay marriage would have the same influence. There is no equivalent body (to the American Christian Right) in any Western European nation that I know of. The Brits I know (small sampling) are secular to the core.

 

I do not think the US government would ever force the church to change its views. As I said before I think it is very likely that public opinion may push (push is different from force) that church to change its views (basically for the sake of keeping up its numbers). I do think its possible that the church could encounter a lawsuit that would give it trouble on the gay rights front. That lawsuit could end up going to the Supreme Court, but would be started by private citizens.

 

I do not see any of this as the church being forced by the government to change its ways. We might have to agree to disagree.

[johnandtinagilbert]

That's what happened in Europe. I thought we agreed though on reason why that is extremely unlikely to happen here. Frankly, I think it is very possible that gay civil unions will be legalized within the next ten years (my personal prediction) and that that will become a new rallying point for the Christian Right actually STRENGTHENING them considerably. Roe vs. Wade did that and I bet legalizing gay marriage would have the same influence. There is no equivalent body (to the American Christian Right) in any Western European nation that I know of. The Brits I know (small sampling) are secular to the core.

 

I do not think the US government would ever force the church to change its views. As I said before I think it is very likely that public opinion may push (push is different from force) that church to change its views (basically for the sake of keeping up its numbers). I do think its possible that the church could encounter a lawsuit that would give it trouble on the gay rights front. That lawsuit could end up going to the Supreme Court, but would be started by private citizens.

 

I do not see any of this as the church being forced by the government to change its ways. We might have to agree to disagree.

 

Kindly, I would encourage you to read up on European politics. There is absolutely a British Conservative vs. Liberal political split, often mirroring the issues we have here in the states. There are other nations with conservative representation. As well as many without separation of church and state where religion and politics mingle the same as days of old Rome and England.

 

I would point you to the Orthodox Church as a growing and thriving church that is as old school as churches come. Very little has changed about them in roughly 1500 years. In fact, I recently read the numbers in America are increasing with increased immigration and new converts.

 

The lawsuit you mentioned really does point to the direction of forced change. As "hate crime" bills increase in number in our law, if a court case, say about a church refusing their building to witches (as mentioned in the article) goes before the Supreme Court, I think the church, or any other organization for that matter, will be forced to have an "equality" operation, just like everybody else. It won't be b/c of desire to change, it will be regulated.

 

I do agree a variety of churches will change with public sway, as they already are changing (homosexual clergy, churches offering marriage and proclaiming themselves homosexual friendly), but I do see in our lifetime, mandated acceptance of alternative lifestyles becoming a huge issue within all church bodies.

 

As the EU turns, so do we, particularly when we are in more liberal cycles of leadership.

[Laura Corin]

Kindly, I would encourage you to read up on European politics. There is absolutely a British Conservative vs. Liberal political split, often mirroring the issues we have here in the states.

 

The number of people in the UK that would be described as conservative in US terms is extremely small. The two major political parties sit well to the left of the equivalent parties in the US.

 

Laura

[theresatwist]

Kindly, I would encourage you to read up on European politics. There is absolutely a British Conservative vs. Liberal political split, often mirroring the issues we have here in the states. There are other nations with conservative representation. As well as many without separation of church and state where religion and politics mingle the same as days of old Rome and England.

 

I would point you to the Orthodox Church as a growing and thriving church that is as old school as churches come. Very little has changed about them in roughly 1500 years. In fact, I recently read the numbers in America are increasing with increased immigration and new converts.

 

The lawsuit you mentioned really does point to the direction of forced change. As "hate crime" bills increase in number in our law, if a court case, say about a church refusing their building to witches (as mentioned in the article) goes before the Supreme Court, I think the church, or any other organization for that matter, will be forced to have an "equality" operation, just like everybody else. It won't be b/c of desire to change, it will be regulated.

 

I do agree a variety of churches will change with public sway, as they already are changing (homosexual clergy, churches offering marriage and proclaiming themselves homosexual friendly), but I do see in our lifetime, mandated acceptance of alternative lifestyles becoming a huge issue within all church bodies.

 

As the EU turns, so do we, particularly when we are in more liberal cycles of leadership.

 

This is a quote from former Prime Minister Tony Blair from an article on the BBC website: "I don't want to end up with an American-style type of politics with us all going out there and beating our chests about our faith," he said.People were defined by their faith but it was 'a bit unhealthy' if it became used in the political process." I'm sure that there are people who disagree with Blair, but my impression is that he still speaks for the majority of Brits.

 

I agree with you that a lawsuit could force change. But I see a lawsuit forcing change is different from the government forcing change. For instance, when Brown v. the Board of Ed overturned Plessy v. Ferguson there were politicians who strongly disagreed and choose to close schools rather than integrate their schools. The Supreme Court and the government have different voices. The government didn't force the end of legislation. That change came from the bottom, not the top. The gay rights movement, as I see it, it following the same sort of path. It has only been able to move forward through the courts. Even politicians here who claim to support gay rights aren't willing to risk the political capital (and the next election) by speaking out or writing legislation.

 

But it's possible we're just not going to agree. I go to a synagogue with a lesbian rabbi and strongly support hate crime legislation:)

Edited August 9, 2009 by theresatwist

[Peek a Boo]

That's what happened in Europe. I thought we agreed though on reason why that is extremely unlikely to happen here. Frankly, I think it is very possible that gay civil unions will be legalized within the next ten years (my personal prediction) and that that will become a new rallying point for the Christian Right actually STRENGTHENING them considerably. Roe vs. Wade did that and I bet legalizing gay marriage would have the same influence. There is no equivalent body (to the American Christian Right) in any Western European nation that I know of. The Brits I know (small sampling) are secular to the core.

 

I do not think the US government would ever force the church to change its views. As I said before I think it is very likely that public opinion may push (push is different from force) that church to change its views (basically for the sake of keeping up its numbers). I do think its possible that the church could encounter a lawsuit that would give it trouble on the gay rights front. That lawsuit could end up going to the Supreme Court, but would be started by private citizens.

 

I do not see any of this as the church being forced by the government to change its ways. We might have to agree to disagree.

 

Roe v Wade may have strengthened the Christian Right, but it's a strong minority. There are still a huge number of people that want to see abortion remain legal. When we're talking about democratic [process, not party] actions, we are seeing what the force of NUMBERS can do. We agreed that the younger generation is embracing the left ideals = more numbers against the Christian Right = higher chance of democratic change to churches losing religious liberty for the sake of "civil rights.'

 

and as we see in Europe, the natural progression of legal reforms like this [gay marriage] end up leading to MORE legal reforms that infringe on religious establishments.

 

whether by a decree from the Congress or Supreme Court matters not; both of those are arms of our GVT. both would force the church to do something that goes against its faith. both would result in a loss of religious freedom, from the gvt.

 

but yeah -- i do understand we probably won't agree :) I only discuss so people who are lurking and still considering the issue can see both sides, so if you want to continue to address issues for them, it's fine by me. :D

[theresatwist]

Roe v Wade may have strengthened the Christian Right, but it's a strong minority. There are still a huge number of people that want to see abortion remain legal. When we're talking about democratic [process, not party] actions, we are seeing what the force of NUMBERS can do. We agreed that the younger generation is embracing the left ideals = more numbers against the Christian Right = higher chance of democratic change to churches losing religious liberty for the sake of "civil rights.'

 

and as we see in Europe, the natural progression of legal reforms like this [gay marriage] end up leading to MORE legal reforms that infringe on religious establishments.

 

whether by a decree from the Congress or Supreme Court matters not; both of those are arms of our GVT. both would force the church to do something that goes against its faith. both would result in a loss of religious freedom, from the gvt.

 

but yeah -- i do understand we probably won't agree :) I only discuss so people who are lurking and still considering the issue can see both sides, so if you want to continue to address issues for them, it's fine by me. :D[/QUO

 

Okay, we're not going to agree on the question of what the courts count as...as I see it there would be no court cases unless citizen brought those cases to the court. Does the court system have a political element? Absolutely, judges are picked by presidents. When it comes to the Supreme Court I'd say your side still has a definite advantage. (Bush was smart and picked young conservatives too...) Still, in my view the issue of gay rights will reach the Supreme Court only if ordinary citizens decide to bring it there.

 

On Roe v. Wade: yes, the Christian Right is still a minority, but they are a very impressively organized minority. You folks make me jealous! As Will Rogers said, "I belong to no organized political party --I'm a Democrat." I think the Christian Right has lost some of its might. I'm not sure when that started, but to me that seemed clear in the 2008 election. If gay civil unions were to continue to make big strides nationwide I think that could give the Christian Right the impetus needed to come back with their full force in 2012. Just my personal political analysis.

 

On disagreeing: I've thought about adding a signature, "In my heart, I think Gloria Steinem is a genius," but I don't think the moderators need that.:lol:

 

(That last comment is totally a joke. I have don't actually want to argue about it. Healthcare is plenty.)

Edited August 9, 2009 by theresatwist
clarification

[hornblower]

On disagreeing: I've thought about adding a signature, "In my heart, I think Gloria Steinem is a genius," but I don't think the moderators need that.:lol:

 

(That last comment is totally a joke. I have don't actually want to argue about it. Healthcare is plenty.)

 

I think the business with Gloria all started with my old sig line

 

"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist."

 

:D

 

~ hornblower, in Vancouver, where we just had a huge pride parade last weekend, sponsored in part by our national broadcaster the CBC. Gotta love Canada.