S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[HRAAB]

I'm glad you asked that. I'm wondering, too.

 

The LDS Church.  A member would need a temple recommend from their bishop.

[Catwoman]

I would guess Mormon?

  

The LDS Church.  A member would need a temple recommend from their bishop.

Thank you -- I had no idea.

 

(BTW, Ishki -- I tried to like your post, but apparently I just ran out of likes. :glare:)

[Ravin]

What? Only "worthy" and documented members of your church could come to the ceremony? What church does that? I'm curious.

LDS.

[Amira]

Yes, that would be Mormons.  But I don't believe that people who aren't married in a Mormon temple aren't really married.  (I also have zero problem with gay marriage, but that's not the point here.)  

[HRAAB]

I was not familiar with the Family Research Council so I just looked up some information on the group.  I'm speechless.  Sometimes ignorance is more comfortable.

[TranquilMind]

People who have a business must accommodate people according to the law.

 

Before the civil rights era people routinely used the argument that they could not accommodate black people in hotels and restaurants because it went against their belief in segregation.

 

Now people want to have a business but not accommodate gay couples or other people who they don't agree with.  No difference.

 

If you have a business, you have to follow the law.  That includes no discrimination.

Analogy does not work.  Segregation is not an established scriptural mandate anywhere.  In fact, Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman.  That is an issue of systemic prejudice within a culture but not a religious belief. 

 

You do have to follow the law, and sell your cakes to people who are "getting married" if they want to buy them, or take your photos of "weddings".  However, that is not the question at all, as no business owner is suddenly refusing to do weddings.  They are being forced to perform wedding services for something that cannot constitute a wedding/marriage according to their scriptures and religious teachings, and that (now) minority should be free to do that.  There's always another florist, baker, or photographer around the corner who is happy to do it.

 

Several who got deliberately targeted and fined/threatened were in states where SS weddings were not even legal, not in states that had passed new laws.  That should worry anyone who is concerned with Constitutional rights.       

[TranquilMind]

LDS.

Ok, thanks.  I didn't realize that they were so strict that outsiders couldn't attend weddings there, but then I have actually never been invited to an LDS wedding, so I guess that makes sense. 

[LucyStoner]

No churches are being forced to perform marriages for gay people or non-members.

 

But if you sell shoes, sandwiches, accounting services, or yes, even wedding flowers or 7 tier cakes for a profit you generally, legally speaking, have to sell them to anyone regardless if they are gay, white, purple, black or from a religion you don't like.

[Cammie]

Analogy does not work.  Segregation is not an established scriptural mandate anywhere.  In fact, Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman.  That is an issue of systemic prejudice within a culture but not a religious belief. 

 

You do have to follow the law, and sell your cakes to people who are "getting married" if they want to buy them, or take your photos of "weddings".  However, that is not the question at all, as no business owner is suddenly refusing to do weddings.  They are being forced to perform wedding services for something that cannot constitute a wedding/marriage according to their scriptures and religious teachings, and that (now) minority should be free to do that.  There's always another florist, baker, or photographer around the corner who is happy to do it.

 

Several who got deliberately targeted and fined/threatened were in states where SS weddings were not even legal, not in states that had passed new laws.  That should worry anyone who is concerned with Constitutional rights.       

 

You do not have to dig too far to find the "scriptural mandate" that racists use to support segregation and other abhorrent practices.  The racists absolutely used religion as a foundational argument.

 

There was another hotel/restaurant around the corner that would allow black people as well.  That doesn't mean the first one was correct in refusing service. 

 

Yes, businesses are refusing to do weddings.  Just because those weddings don't fit in with your (very narrow) definition of what constitutes a wedding doesn't mean it is not a wedding.  It simply is not up to you (or to your church) to decide what is and what is not a wedding for other people.  You can decide for YOURSELF.  Your church can decide for those people who chose to affiliate with that church.  You do not have the right to define that term for the entire planet.  It is just ridiculous to think that one group would get to define it for the planet.  For each and every culture.  For each and every religion.  For each and every human being.  You do not get to define what is a wedding and what is a marriage.

 

You do get that your scriptures are different than other people's scriptures?  That your reading of your scriptures is different than many other people's reading of the EXACT SAME SCRIPTURES.  My father is a protestant pastor.  I would argue that he knows his scripture pretty well.  He happily performs gay marriages, and has done so for years.

 

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.  It doesn't matter that you think you have a religious basis for your brand of discrimination.  Some of the worst atrocities in history were perpetrated by people who had religious reasons, that doesn't make them less awful. 

[Mergath]

Analogy does not work.  Segregation is not an established scriptural mandate anywhere.  In fact, Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman.  That is an issue of systemic prejudice within a culture but not a religious belief.    

 

 

That's not what the segregation supporters would have told you back in the day.  They had all sorts of biblical evidence that interracial anything was an abomination.   

[TranquilMind]

That's not what the segregation supporters would have told you back in the day.  They had all sorts of biblical evidence that interracial anything was an abomination.   

Then they were ignoring the Old Testament. 

[umsami]

Actually, I'm pretty sure people were trading two goats and a chicken for a wife long before it was a sacrament.

 

If only I had thought to put that into my Nikkah (Muslim marriage contract...husband pays the wife dowry), I'd be a lot further in my dream of a hobby farm. ;)  (It's a pipe dream. I really don't want to take care of animals every single day...find people to watch them so I can go on vacation, etc.  Four kids are enough. :))

[Veritaserum]

What?  Only "worthy" and documented members of your church could come to the ceremony?  What church does that?  I'm curious.

 

  

The LDS Church.  A member would need a temple recommend from their bishop.

Yes, LDS.

 

Temple weddings/sealings (the idea is that you're bound for eternity after this ceremony) are seen as The Right Way to be married. Other weddings (civil, other religions) are seen as valid/legal but sad because they're not eternal. In countries that require public wedding ceremonies, LDS couples have a public ceremony and then they get sealed privately later. I hope the church makes that a worldwide policy soon because the exclusiveness of temple weddings causes a lot of unnecessary pain--especially if the bride and/or groom converted. Currently, if a couple in the US does not get legally married and sealed in a temple ceremony, they must wait a year to be sealed as a penalty. Also, if a couple doesn't marry in the temple, people assume that they had morality (chastity) issues or were otherwise unworthy. Therefore, there is a ton of pressure to "do the right thing" by getting married in the temple despite familial or other concerns.

 

My mother is a convert. Her parents were not allowed to attend her LDS wedding. My grandmother was a convert as well, but at that time (1970s) women who were married to non-members were not allowed to go through the temple ceremonies that are required before one can attend a wedding/sealing. My mom tells the story as an example of her choosing God over everything else, including family. I see it as unnecessarily divisive and hurtful. She was my grandmother's only daughter.

[zoobie]

Analogy does not work. Segregation is not an established scriptural mandate anywhere. In fact, Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman. That is an issue of systemic prejudice within a culture but not a religious belief.

 

You do have to follow the law, and sell your cakes to people who are "getting married" if they want to buy them, or take your photos of "weddings". However, that is not the question at all, as no business owner is suddenly refusing to do weddings. They are being forced to perform wedding services for something that cannot constitute a wedding/marriage according to their scriptures and religious teachings, and that (now) minority should be free to do that. There's always another florist, baker, or photographer around the corner who is happy to do it.

 

Several who got deliberately targeted and fined/threatened were in states where SS weddings were not even legal, not in states that had passed new laws. That should worry anyone who is concerned with Constitutional rights.

The "religious right" in the US developed around segregation. It's morphed since then, obviously, but that was the origin. Scripture and religion absolutely were used to defend their positions. Bob Jones University didn't allow black students until the 1970s, and even after allowing students who met certain requirements to enroll, it continued to forbid interracial dating. They based this on religious doctrine and claimed First Amendment protections. The IRS stripped its tax exempt status. BJU sued and the resultant court case went all the way to the Supreme Court. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/ (Liberal media source, but it is a well-written sketch including links to law review articles and etcetera) N.B., BJU didn't lift the ban on interracial dating until 2000. This isn't exactly in the way back past!

 

The refusal to provide flowers for a gay wedding is absolutely equivalent with the refusal to provide flowers for an interracial wedding. I'm not concerned about my constitutional rights at all in this regard.

[LucyStoner]

Can I jump in to mention something related to the Southern Poverty Law Center?

 

Dh and I recently watched a fascinating documentary on Netflix. It was about a former white supremacist who left the movement after many years. He had covered his body and face with racist tattoos.

 

The documentary follows the process of removing the ones on his face. The Southern Poverty Law Center funded the treatment process.

 

It was so interesting how they helped someone who was once a part of one of the hate groups they monitored.

 

I think the title is "Erasing Hate". I highly recommend it.

Before, during and after pictures if people are interested.

http://www.nashvillescene.com/imager/international-lens-fall-2012-erasing-hate/b/original/3028511/ff14/Erasing_Hate.jpg

[Rosie_0801]

(For myself, I pretty much think that civil contract style marriage is the best for everyone, and that religious people can embroider sacramentalism onto it on their own time. I just think having a special name for their-marriage-plus-sacrament idea might help them handle it better.)

 

"Sacramentally-married" rolls off the tongue a little easier than "civil unioned." Of course "sacramentally-married" doesn't tell anyone whose sacraments. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Analogy does not work. Segregation is not an established scriptural mandate anywhere. In fact, Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman. That is an issue of systemic prejudice within a culture but not a religious belief.

 

You do have to follow the law, and sell your cakes to people who are "getting married" if they want to buy them, or take your photos of "weddings". However, that is not the question at all, as no business owner is suddenly refusing to do weddings. They are being forced to perform wedding services for something that cannot constitute a wedding/marriage according to their scriptures and religious teachings, and that (now) minority should be free to do that. There's always another florist, baker, or photographer around the corner who is happy to do it.

 

Several who got deliberately targeted and fined/threatened were in states where SS weddings were not even legal, not in states that had passed new laws. That should worry anyone who is concerned with Constitutional rights.

Where is the scripture that says it is a sin to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple?

[Pawz4me]

Then they were ignoring the Old Testament. 

 

Not all of it.  Just the parts that didn't fit their agenda.

[DawnM]

When I worked our insurance covered the entire family if you were married (according to the laws of the state).  However, if you were not married it would cover one other person and any children you had.  So, this allowed you to have a domestic partner of any kind covered.  

 

I knew some singles who weren't in a relationship who even used it for another family member.  One guy covered his mother under his policy.  

 

However, many used it for their partners of the same sex and it was completely covered.

 

 

My brother's husband's company has covered domestic partners as long as they were together but the insurance company would regularly change his gender and marital status in their system because they didn't have any way in the computer to fit a FTM transgendered person who was partnered with a man and occasionally used healthcare services associated with female patients. It was a never ending switcheroo.

 

[Muttichen]

 

The refusal to provide flowers for a gay wedding is absolutely equivalent with the refusal to provide flowers for an interracial wedding. I'm not concerned about my constitutional rights at all in this regard.

 

No, it's not equivalent at all.  The basic premise that deviant sexual behavior is equivalent to race is completely untrue.

[Laura Corin]

No, it's not equivalent at all.  The basic premise that deviant sexual behavior is equivalent to race is completely untrue.

 

Deviant.   Okay.  

 

Sexual preference is biologically determined but  socially expressed.  So we now live in societies where straight sex is not the only kind of socially acceptable sex.  And having seen 'The Imitation Game' a week or so ago, I'm extremely glad of the change.  At least my uncle only had to live thirty years under the threat of arrest for expressing his natural sexuality.

 

There have been societies in which being strictly heterosexual would have been deviant (the male ruling class of ancient Athens, for example, if we are still on a Classical home education board).  The 21st century in the West is no longer a society in which homosexuality deviates from broad social acceptance.  Thank goodness.  

 

Now, if you don't like this, feel free to live within a constrained subgroup.   But don't expect that wider society will give you an easy time about your views.

 

L 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

No, it's not equivalent at all.  The basic premise that deviant sexual behavior is equivalent to race is completely untrue.

 

Actually, the basic premise is that vendors and merchants don't really get to discriminate based on what they they believe to be "deviant." They don't get to decide whether your political leanings align with theirs, or whether the birth control you choose to use (or whether you choose any at all) is a factor, or whether your beliefs on abortion are acceptable to them, or whether your religion works for them, or whether they believe oral sex or masturbation is sinful so they can't serve you. That's the whole point of human rights. If you're a human, you have them. Or you should. Other people don't get to decide whether rights apply to you or not. THAT is the basic premise we're working under here. If vendors don't like it, they should go into a different field of work.

[zoobie]

No, it's not equivalent at all. The basic premise that deviant sexual behavior is equivalent to race is completely untrue.

That's just... Wow.

 

The 1950s bigots thought that relations between whites and blacks were deviant. You can parse your prejudice however you want in your head, but from a legal standpoint and a constitutional standpoint, the situations are analogous.

[*Lulu*]

No, it's not equivalent at all. The basic premise that deviant sexual behavior is equivalent to race is completely untrue.

It is absolutely the same.

 

 

Things that have been classified as deviant and otherwise unacceptable based on religious teachings in the last 200 years (since that is what matters, American history, right?):

 

-women wearing pants

-women working outside the home

-interracial relationships

-women voting

-non-white people voting

-children that are not white attending schools with those that are

-white people sharing a water fountain with people that are not white

-women smoking, playing cards, or swearing

-women attending college

-same sex relationships

 

 

The definition of deviant:

 

adjective

1.

deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation :

deviant social behavior.

noun

2.

a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

[Ravin]

 

Yes, LDS.

 

Temple weddings/sealings (the idea is that you're bound for eternity after this ceremony) are seen as The Right Way to be married. Other weddings (civil, other religions) are seen as valid/legal but sad because they're not eternal. In countries that require public wedding ceremonies, LDS couples have a public ceremony and then they get sealed privately later. I hope the church makes that a worldwide policy soon because the exclusiveness of temple weddings causes a lot of unnecessary pain--especially if the bride and/or groom converted. Currently, if a couple in the US does not get legally married and sealed in a temple ceremony, they must wait a year to be sealed as a penalty. Also, if a couple doesn't marry in the temple, people assume that they had morality (chastity) issues or were otherwise unworthy. Therefore, there is a ton of pressure to "do the right thing" by getting married in the temple despite familial or other concerns.

 

My mother is a convert. Her parents were not allowed to attend her LDS wedding. My grandmother was a convert as well, but at that time (1970s) women who were married to non-members were not allowed to go through the temple ceremonies that are required before one can attend a wedding/sealing. My mom tells the story as an example of her choosing God over everything else, including family. I see it as unnecessarily divisive and hurtful. She was my grandmother's only daughter.

What about doing a public ceremony after the temple marriage ceremony?

[albeto.]

Then they were ignoring the Old Testament. 

 

This is why relying on the bible as a source of moral code is so absurd. You say they were ignoring the old testament, they'd say you are. Unless all you Christians get into a ring and duke it out, last one standing calls the shots, there's no way to determine what the biblical standard should be. And yet the rest of us are compelled to live with laws inspired by these vague, evasive, ancient standards. 

[elegantlion]

And this is why the government needs to be involved in the definition of marriage, and why same sex couples should be afforded the right to marry. (I've had thoughts brewing since early this morning, let's see how they come out with actual coffee in my system). 

 

Marriage can be a secular or religious contract. Either way, it is a joining together of two people who love each other. They could have been married by a Pirate, belong to the church of Bob & Doug (get some beers, eh?), be LDS, be Catholic, been married in the garden, in a church, in a tree, don't you see. (No, stop, not Dr. Seuss this early!). Marriage then gets a stamp of approval from the government in the form of a license. 

 

Then the government is telling everyone else this couple does business with - they are recognized by us, the gov, to be married and should be afforded the rights of marriage as defined by your business. At the IRS that's a tax break, at your insurance company (all kinds, that's cost breaks), for an employer they get to be covered by benefits (I've never worked anywhere were a cohabitant would have been offered coverage). In life, you then get to define yourself as married and are extended all those civil rights - including many legal and end of life protections. 

 

If the government didn't do that, then what if you worked for an employer that decided the LDS practice of letting only "worthy" people in the temple to get married was a terrible practice and so your employer wanted to decide you weren't married. 

 

Crimson, you often discuss the hiring practices you've seen where the school plays a huge role in if someone is offered a job. That debate aside, what if you worked for someone who decided Catholics really aren't christians and so you couldn't hire offer Catholics the benefits package to their spouse. Does that negate your love for your spouse? Does it make you question whether you marriage is valid? No. It just means the employer is bringing his/her personal definition of marriage to a situation where it should be irrelevant. 

 

I've been studying early modern history and it's fascinating to see how church and state entanglements have shaped history. Government here defines marriage and individuals have a right to choose whether they marry in a church of their choice or on the beach by a justice of the Peace. It's less messy that way. Same sex couples are only asking for the right to have their marriages recognized, it does not negate how you (rhetorical) got married or divorced (in my case), in fact, the choice of a same-sex couple asking for the right to marry really doesn't affect you or your marriage at all. 

[albeto.]

Really, how did we get from discussing a hate group to defending businesses who won't sell to LGBTIQ customers ??!!

 

Silly atheist, FRC can't be a hate group if it's not hateful to shun. If shunning is a means by which someone can be spared a worse fate (AIDS, say, or an eternity of unspeakable pain and torment), then that's an act of love, not hate. 

[Veritaserum]

What about doing a public ceremony after the temple marriage ceremony?

Some couples do a ring ceremony, but any wedding-like ceremony after a temple wedding ceremony is heavily discouraged. The idea is that doing another ceremony will draw attention away from the real (and best) ceremony. My husband and I wondered about doing a ceremony at the reception for the benefit of his non-member family, but we were basically shamed into not doing one. If I could do it over again, I would definitely not get married in the temple. The temple ceremony does not reflect my ideas of what marriage should be, it excludes people, and it is not personalized at all. I've wondered about doing a "vow renewal" ceremony for an anniversary, but it wouldn't really be a renewal because we never exchanged vows in the first place.

[Amira]

What about exchanging vows with each other in your own ceremony, Laura?

[umsami]

 

Marriage can be a secular or religious contract. Either way, it is a joining together of two people who love each other. They could have been married by a Pirate, belong to the church of Bob & Doug (get some beers, eh?), be LDS, be Catholic, been married in the garden, in a church, in a tree, don't you see. (No, stop, not Dr. Seuss this early!). Marriage then gets a stamp of approval from the government in the form of a license. 

 

 

 

Need to single out an extra-special like for the Church of Bob & Doug.   :lol:    Remember watching SCTV and seeing "Strange Brew" with friends in high school.  Almost time for their version of the 12 days of Christmas. :)

[Lady Florida.]

If only I had thought to put that into my Nikkah (Muslim marriage contract...husband pays the wife dowry), I'd be a lot further in my dream of a hobby farm. ;)  (It's a pipe dream. I really don't want to take care of animals every single day...find people to watch them so I can go on vacation, etc.  Four kids are enough. :))

 

Well then, perhaps you should have thought to have not only the goats and chickens, but a servant to tend them. Of course the animal tender (whatever he'd be called) would have to be paid, but that's another issue. ;-)

 

When I worked our insurance covered the entire family if you were married (according to the laws of the state).  However, if you were not married it would cover one other person and any children you had.  So, this allowed you to have a domestic partner of any kind covered.  

 

I knew some singles who weren't in a relationship who even used it for another family member.  One guy covered his mother under his policy.  

 

However, many used it for their partners of the same sex and it was completely covered.

 

I'm not a big fan of Disney. Having lived here since before Disney World opened, I've heard all kinds of stories about how they treat their employees, and few of those stories were good. However, they were one of the first (if not the first) big employers in Central Florida to offer insurance benefits to domestic partners, and they did it nearly 20 years ago when it was extremely unpopular to do so. Domestic partners could be same sex or opposite sex according to their insurance plan. It was a big deal and a big local news story at the time. IIRC, there were calls from various religious groups for boycotts.

[Lady Florida.]

Need to single out an extra-special like for the Church of Bob & Doug.   :lol:    Remember watching SCTV and seeing "Strange Brew" with friends in high school.  Almost time for their version of the 12 days of Christmas. :)

 

That song came on the radio over Thanksgiving weekend when all three of us were in the car. Dh and I started reminiscing and saying things like "eh" and "hoser". Ds didn't get what was so funny about it. :D

[albeto.]

You mean like targeting and putting your opponents out of business because you don't like their religious beliefs?

Is religious belief the only thing that makes it uncomfortable? What I wonder is, would it be similarly distasteful in a different context, for example if a small community collectively refuses to patronize a new strip club in town. If the porn industry went out of business because people stopped purchasing movies and watching videos on line, would that be an example of the market putting inappropriate pressure on business for ethical reasons of the individuals that compromise "the market"?

 

You mean silencing all viewpoints but your own in venues like college campuses?

 

I'm not sure why college campuses would be expected to give equal time to representatives of every viewpoint. If they don't decide what constitutes as educational enrichment, who does? Should my local university be compelled to give equal speaking time to NAMBLA representatives in order to avoid the appearance of silencing viewpoints but theirs?

 

You might think that is cool, but I don't.  I'm willing to listen to anyone who is presenting a viewpoint respectfully.

 

I think you're looking at it from a defensive point of view, and that's skewing how you interpret the circumstances. You're looking at it from the point of view of conserving the social status quo, but that's not only impossible, it's undesirable for most of society. I'm having trouble thinking of an example of a society that freely chooses to preserve all conservative social expectations and public policy. But furthermore, the interesting thing for me to note is that those very ideas that people want to preserve were once "new and improved" ideas that replaced even more traditional expectations. We've already talked about the trend to reduce racism in public policy, and we tend to forget how much women gained in each generation. Instead, people point to this amorphous "golden era" of society when things were as they should have been, and watch as society moves away from that, to the detriment of society (without considering how the older generation of that society thought of the same era as degradation of society!). How interestingly we tend to ignore those conservation efforts to preserve other values, values like appeal to law rather than vigilantism, appeal to reason rather than tyranny, appeal to logic rather than fear of retribution. 

 

I see this idea on this forum all the time. Parents younger than me lament the downfall of society, pointing to their own youth when things were better. Interestingly, their own youth marked a time of fear and anxiety for my generation! And the same thing happened in my mother's generation, and her mother's before her. Society evolves for so many reasons, including, I think, access to information and new ideas. What I see is people want to suppress information and new ideas in order to preserve a particular belief (not necessarily religious, but you can't remove religion from society, they're too interconnected). Part of this belief is that a "golden age" is behind us, and we're going to hell in a hand basket. Ask any group whose has recent memory of being systematically and legally marginalized, and you'll find a different interpretation of the evolution of society. In other words, the belief system being preserved is the privilege to maintain privilege - even at the expense of others. 

[elegantlion]

apologize for the slight hijack. 

 

Need to single out an extra-special like for the Church of Bob & Doug.   :lol:    Remember watching SCTV and seeing "Strange Brew" with friends in high school.  Almost time for their version of the 12 days of Christmas. :)

 

 

That song came on the radio over Thanksgiving weekend when all three of us were in the car. Dh and I started reminiscing and saying things like "eh" and "hoser". Ds didn't get what was so funny about it. :D

 

 

Here ya go, hosers. 

 

[elegantlion]

 Ask any group whose has recent memory of being systematically and legally marginalized, and you'll find a different interpretation of the evolution of society. In other words, the belief system being preserved is the privilege to maintain privilege - even at the expense of others. 

 

I was a bit disgusted when I discovered an interracial marriage issue ended up in the Supreme Court in my lifetime. This was never a topic of conversation in my household - of course I was a baby then, but still. 

 

I truly believe history will show us in the same light about same sex couples. It's not a loss of the good old days, it's a recognition of a people group that defines themselves differently than opposite sex couples. I would hope that most people don't think twice about interracial couples. I hope the future always the same for same sex couples. 

[LucyStoner]

No, it's not equivalent at all. The basic premise that deviant sexual behavior is equivalent to race is completely untrue.

If I own a grocery store and you walk in and I don't like your religious beliefs, I still have to sell you groceries. The law says I can't refuse service for discriminatory reasons- race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability. If I can't bear to take your money for my product, I shouldn't be opening a store to sell those products. Would it not be discrimination for me to refuse to sell to Christians?

[Veritaserum]

What about exchanging vows with each other in your own ceremony, Laura?

I want to do that. Our 20th is coming up in a few years. I want a small ceremony on a cliff overlooking the ocean--which is what I wanted for our actual wedding, too.

[Amira]

I want to do that. Our 20th is coming up in a few years. I want a small ceremony on a cliff overlooking the ocean--which is what I wanted for our actual wedding, too.

That sounds lovey. I hope you can do that.

[Scarlett]

There seems to be a lot of focus on defining marriage....but defining marriage won't change anything one way or the other. It may normalize to some what others feel should not be normalized, but it won't change whether a situation is right or wrong.

 

Morality cannot be legislated. I will comply with the law up to the point my conscience says no. But other than that I just try to live my life and raise my kid the best way I know how according to what I believe.

[umsami]

Morality cannot be legislated. I will comply with the law up to the point my conscience says no. But other than that I just try to live my life and raise my kid the best way I know how according to what I believe.

 

Morality is legislated all the time.  Often that's the basis for laws.  "Thou shall not kill"..... is legislated by the fact that if you do kill somebody, you will face judicial action.  Up until not too long ago, that also usually meant the murderer lost his/her life.  

 

BTW, that very phrase was used as a reason not to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the laws did not remove all racism, it did, in many ways change things towards the better.

[elegantlion]

There seems to be a lot of focus on defining marriage....but defining marriage won't change anything one way or the other. It may normalize to some what others feel should not be normalized, but it won't change whether a situation is right or wrong.

 

Morality cannot be legislated. I will comply with the law up to the point my conscience says no. But other than that I just try to live my life and raise my kid the best way I know how according to what I believe.

 

But who is right and who is wrong? You believe one thing, others believe another thing. Your morality does not trump my morality. The government defining marriage allows ALL of society to benefit from marriage. You may still hold your beliefs without fear of repercussion if gay people are allowed to be married. Society is for all the people, not just those whom you (rhetorically) feel are "moral". 

 

there will not be gay parade in your town that will knock on all the doors and suddenly demand that you be gay, even if you're wink-wink-nudge-nudge not. You won't have to sign a piece of paper on your status or risk jail time. You can still be a heterosexual couple. 

 

Again studying history about church and marriage and establishment of state religions and suddenly you had to be this or lie about it is pretty enlightening to our current situation. 

 

The American dream is we are free men (humanity speaking). As long as a subgroup of this society (one that isn't out harming babies or burning crosses) isn't free, then none of us are free. Gays shouldn't have to hide in a closet, Same sex couples shouldn't have to parade around as "sisters" or "brothers" in order to not offend their community that sees them as immoral. We all have lots of things in this country that offend us. :D That doesn't mean they aren't moral. For instance, as stated on another thread, I don't like kids hawking goods outside of Walmart. It's a personal preference that I'd rather not feel like I'm a horrible person for not buying whatever when I'm on my way to buy groceries. I can walk on by and not be affected by them, if I so choose. I don't like it though and because this is America I am free to take my business elsewhere if I'm that bothered by it. 

[Scarlett]

Morality is legislated all the time. Often that's the basis for laws. "Thou shall not kill"..... is legislated by the fact that if you do kill somebody, you will face judicial action. Up until not too long ago, that also usually meant the murderer lost his/her life. .

Having laws does not make people moral or immoral. Fear of consequences does maintain order to an extent. But laws do not make people want to do right or wrong.

[Scarlett]

But who is right and who is wrong? You believe one thing, others believe another thing. Your morality does not trump my morality. The government defining marriage allows ALL of society to benefit from marriage. You may still hold your beliefs without fear of repercussion if gay people are allowed to be married. Society is for all the people, not just those whom you (rhetorically) feel are "moral".

Isn't that basically what I said? I said I will continue to live my life and raise my kid according to what I believe to be right and wrong.

[Joanne]

Having laws does not make people moral or immoral. Fear of consequences does maintain order to an extent. But laws do not make people want to do right or wrong.

 

 

If laws don't translate to making people do right/wrong, why the intentional efforts of the FRC (and other hate groups) to legislate their definition of marriage?

[Ravin]

If laws don't translate to making people do right/wrong, why the intentional efforts of the FRC (and other hate groups) to legislate their definition of marriage?

Some people just can't absorb the general notion that their right to swing their fist ends where someone else's face begins.

[Veritaserum]

Something that I wish more conservative parents would realize is that few children/teens have the nuance and maturity to separate "homosexuality/same-sex attraction is a sin" from how they interact with and treat LGBT people they encounter. I had to pull my daughter out from public school because "love the sinner hate the sin" did nothing to promote kind treatment from these religiously conservative kids toward LGBT kids like my daughter. She faced daily harassment and teasing. She was treated as less than fully human. I find this to be much more morally repugnant than whatever consensual sexual practices someone might engage in. As a Christian, I find it very disturbing and disappointing that other Christians seem to think "love one another" does not apply to LGBT people (individually or as a group).

[Scarlett]

If laws don't translate to making people do right/wrong, why the intentional efforts of the FRC (and other hate groups) to legislate their definition of marriage?

I have no idea. I don't get involved in politics at all.

[Joanne]

If I own a grocery store and you walk in and I don't like your religious beliefs, I still have to sell you groceries. The law says I can't refuse service for discriminatory reasons- race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability. If I can't bear to take your money for my product, I shouldn't be opening a store to sell those products. Would it not be discrimination for me to refuse to sell to Christians?

 

 

It is ironic to me that in a post above, strippers were mentioned. If a female stripper went to a Christian florist or baker for her wedding purchases, should the business owners be allowed to decline?

 

If a sin is a sin is a sin, should Christian (or other conservative religious owner) be able to decline services to smokers? Gossips? Gluttons? People who yell at their kids (oops, that implies unwed or divorced parents, so maybe they should be excluded already based on THAT.)

[Caroline]

Something that I wish more conservative parents would realize is that few children/teens have the nuance and maturity to separate "homosexuality/same-sex attraction is a sin" from how they interact with and treat LGBT people they encounter. I had to pull my daughter out from public school because "love the sinner hate the sin" did nothing to promote kind treatment from these religiously conservative kids toward LGBT kids like my daughter. She faced daily harassment and teasing. She was treated as less than fully human. I find this to be much more morally repugnant than whatever consensual sexual practices someone might engage in. As a Christian, I find it very disturbing and disappointed that other Christians seem to think "love one another" does not apply to LGBT people (individually or as a group).

 

I have a friend who has pulled her daughter out of school for the same reason. The way she was treated was absolutely horrendous.

 

 Hugs to you and your daughter.