Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[*Lulu*]

It was a party to celebrate a wedding that had already taken place.

 

Would you defend his right not to give a cake to someone who was having a party to celebrate a second marriage?

 

An interfaith marriage?

 

A baby shower for a single mother?

 

A birthday cake for a mistress?

 

 

And how is it any of the bakers right to know the details of someone's life so he/she can be evaluated for the spiritual purity that meets the baker's requirements?

[bettyandbob]

Again, the baker did not object to serving gay clients.  He objected to serving the particular event.  Homosexual orientation is not the same thing as homosexual marriage.  In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of American gays are not interested in getting married.

 

Have you surveyed the "vast majority of American gays"?  How many people in this category do you know.

 

Some restaurants didn't completely refuse to sell meals to black people. They just sold the food from a back door and black couldn't eat on premises.

 

If you run a business, you provide the same service to everyone. The same. You can't say well certain people can have my top products and everyone else can have my lesser products.

 

[justasque]

I would certainly agree that having some parents is better than having none at all.  

 

I question the fairness of creating a child whom you intend to separate permanently from a natural parent.  Outside of adoption, this is the only way for gay parents to have children.

 

Non-ideal situations occur in heterosexual couplings, too.  No one disputes that.  But in the normal course of things, it is not a requirement for a child born of heterosexual parents to be permanently separated from one of them.

 

I don't know quite what you mean by "creat[ing] sperm and egg cells from whomever we choose."  For what purpose?  Do you mean that we would be capable, say, of collecting dna from passersby on the street and creating babies from strangers?   I am not being facetious; I really do not understand your point.  

 

 

No.

 

I believe that including homosexual unions within the concept of marriage reinforces a conceptualization of marriage focused more on the rights and privileges of adults than the bearing and rearing of children.

 

I believe that a concept of marriage founded on the union of potential fathers and mothers as a secure foundation for the bearing and rearing of children is most beneficial to society.

 

I am sorry but I have to bow out of the conversation now as my own family's needs take precedence. I sincerely appreciate those who have been willing to engage in thoughtful discussion.

 

Many of the gay folks I know want civil marriage specifically because of the children they are raising (or plan to raise in the future).  Children come to families with same-sex parents in all kinds of ways.

 

I don't understand why same-sex civil marriage would be more about the rights and privileges of adults over the bearing and rearing of children than opposite-sex civil marriage is.  Civil marriage brings with it a range of rights and responsibilities between the two adults, and between the adults and their children.  Perhaps someone could expand on this?

 

I can see the benefit of civil marriage that is founded on the union of potential fathers and mothers as a secure foundation for the bearing and raising of children.  But what about the children who are borne and/or raised in families where the parents are of the same sex?  However it is that the children have come to the family, whether biologically, through kinship adoption, foster-to-adopt, or any of the other ways that adults become responsible for raising children, don't those children benefit from two parents who have the secure foundation of civil marriage?

[LizItaly]

So a heterosexual couple who are incapable of having children for the biological reason that one or both partners cannot provide the requisite genetic material, or who simply choose not to have children, still deserve all the rights and benefit of marriage. But a gay couple who cannot have children for the same biological reason, or who simply choose not to have children, do not deserve the same rights and benefits. And the only reason for this is that your personal interpretation of your religious scriptures  â€” which is not shared by all Christians —is that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry.

 

How do you justify the idea that your personal religious beliefs should take precedence over everyone else's religious beliefs, including the many Christians who believe that gays should have the right to marry?

 

 

 

 

What about the many heterosexual couples where the husband is infertile so they use donated sperm? Is that unfair? Or is it only unfair when lesbians use donated sperm? Ditto with egg donation or surrogacy — bad for everyone, or only gay couples?

 

Yes, I question the fairness any time anyone creates a child in a way that will permanently separate that child from a natural parent.  It happens to be a much more common practice in heterosexual couples.  I do not think that makes it any more fair for the child, though I completely understand the desire of the parents (heterosexual or homosexual).  I truly sympathize with the anguish of infertile couples.  I do not think there are easy answers for them, and this is extremely difficult.  

[justasque]

...Homosexual orientation is not the same thing as homosexual marriage.  In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of American gays are not interested in getting married.

That's an interesting perspective LizItaly.  Could you expand on it a bit?  It is different from my experience/observation.  All of the young GLBT kids I know have pretty much the same values and goals as their heterosexual peers; I don't see a difference between them.  But then, the GLBT kids I know are raised for the most part in stable, intact, mostly-Christian families, and either homeschool or go to a faith-based school.  Perhaps it is different for the homosexual people in your life, because you are looking at a different part of the population?

[Corraleno]

Again, the baker did not object to serving gay clients.  He objected to serving the particular event.  Homosexual orientation is not the same thing as homosexual marriage.  In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of American gays are not interested in getting married.

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

And BTW, straight people are increasingly less interested in getting married — only 26% of Americans aged 18-33 are married. In 2012, 47% of all births to women aged 18-33 were out of wedlock.

 

If people truly believe that it's better for children to be raised by two married parents, it seems counterproductive to me to try to prevent many people who want to get married from actually marrying.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not prevent homosexuals from bonding, or even encourage them to bond with heterosexuals.  It simply does not call that marriage.

 

Words have meaning.  When we use the word "marriage" figuratively, we mean the union of two disparate things, e.g., "The dish was a marriage of traditional French and exotic Vietnamese flavors."  We would never say, "The dish was a marriage of traditional French flavors and traditional French flavors."  

 

That doesn't mean two gay people cannot have a meaningful, committed, lifelong union.  But it is not the same as a marriage.  Does that mean that homosexuals are "lesser"?  That is frankly not my opinion, nor do I think it is implied in saying that a homosexual union is different from a heterosexual marriage.  It is different.

 

So you believe the word marriage is centered solely around genitalia?  The union can also be a reference to the joining of souls and families, which means of course it applies to homosexual couples as well.

[lionfamily1999]

There has been a belief that people choose their sexual orientation and that those who identify as homosexual were going against their God given nature.

 

Today we know that people who are heterosexual or homosexual are so because their genetic makeup inclines them that way and they are, in fact, following their God given nature.

 

Actually, the closest thing to a genetic link that has been found is still be testing and there a lot of questions about it.  IOW, some scientists think they might have found a link, but it's still being looked into.

 

A few pages back I said that saying something enough times can make people believe it's true and this is a case in point.  People have been saying for years that this is genetic, but a study published last month is being touted as the first possible proof and it's still in the debate stage.  There is a study going on now that is testing that study.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Okay, I'll grant that the word itself has a certain appeal that "civil union" lacks.  I'm not sure that is a convincing legal argument, however.  

 

Let me ask you this.  It used to be (although was not always the case) that marriage meant 1 man and 1 woman.  If the sex is no longer important, that is, it doesn't matter if it is man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman, does the number matter?  And if so, why?

 

While there is little historical precedent for gay marriage there is huge and widespread historical precedent for polygamy.

 

The legal argument is that under civil law a "marriage" allows a couple various legal protections and benefits, and courts are slowly recognizing that those benefits cannot be restricted to heterosexual couples only.

If a state wants to issue "civil union" certificates to every couple as a way to get around recognizing gay marriage, it can do so.  Of course that won't prevent homosexual couples from calling themselves married if they choose to do so.

 

When it is all said and done, Christians do not own the word and will have to accept that we all live in a diverse nation.

[LucyStoner]

Okay, I'll grant that the word itself has a certain appeal that "civil union" lacks. I'm not sure that is a convincing legal argument, however.

 

Let me ask you this. It used to be (although was not always the case) that marriage meant 1 man and 1 woman. If the sex is no longer important, that is, it doesn't matter if it is man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman, does the number matter? And if so, why?

 

While there is little historical precedent for gay marriage there is huge and widespread historical precedent for polygamy.

The main, visible defenders of polygamy in this country are devout Christians.

 

I imagine my feelings on polygamy are like a lot of Christians on gay marriage. I am not comfortable with it. I think aspects of it are immoral and harmful.

 

But provided the participants are of age and consenting and know about the other spouses, where do I get off judging them? For some, they fervently believe this is an issue of salvation. Who am I to tell them otherwise? There are practical considerations that would need to be hammered out but no, I don't think someone with multiple spouses should be prosecuted on that basis alone. Please note this doesn't mean I condone the crimes that some polygamist groups commit- older men abbandoning/shunning young boys or underage marriages or coercion of any kind.

 

FWIW "this word is important to my religion and means one thing only in my religion" is also not a convincing legal argument. The convincing legal argument is EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Period.

[LizItaly]

It was a party to celebrate a wedding that had already taken place.

 

Would you defend his right not to give a cake to someone who was having a party to celebrate a second marriage?

 

An interfaith marriage?

 

A baby shower for a single mother?

 

A birthday cake for a mistress?

 

 

And how is it any of the bakers right to know the details of someone's life so he/she can be evaluated for the spiritual purity that meets the baker's requirements?

 

I may not agree with his decisions, but I would support his right to refuse cakes to any of the above.  I have no idea how he could know any of those details you mention, unless they were explicitly mentioned by the customer, as in the gay marriage case.  If he wants to do his own research on his clients, that's his prerogative, though I doubt he would end up making much money.  

 

I realize that few will agree with me.  But I am interested above all in individual liberty.  

 

Even though I have made it clear in other comments, for example, that I question the fairness of creating a child with sperm or egg donation, I would not make this illegal.  I would not make homosexual adoption illegal.  I would not make homosexual unions illegal, though I do object, as I have said, to the use of the word "marriage."  I would not keep homosexuals from obtaining next-of-kin rights or inheritance rights.  I am interested in protecting my own freedom to act as I see fit, but I am also interested in protecting your freedom, and everyone else's, too.

 

If I, as a not very religious Jew, tried to hire a kosher baker, and he refused to bake me a cake because I am marrying outside my faith, I would go find another baker.  No problem, kids.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Again, the baker did not object to serving gay clients.  He objected to serving the particular event.  Homosexual orientation is not the same thing as homosexual marriage.  In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of American gays are not interested in getting married.

 

He objected to provide a cake for a certain event because the participants were gay.  As he provides that same product for everyone else (and agreed to do so for this couple until he found out they were gay), that is discrimination. You can torture the logic as much as you want but you still won't make it confess.

[zoobie]

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not prevent homosexuals from bonding, or even encourage them to bond with heterosexuals. It simply does not call that marriage.

 

Words have meaning. When we use the word "marriage" figuratively, we mean the union of two disparate things, e.g., "The dish was a marriage of traditional French and exotic Vietnamese flavors." We would never say, "The dish was a marriage of traditional French flavors and traditional French flavors."

 

That doesn't mean two gay people cannot have a meaningful, committed, lifelong union. But it is not the same as a marriage. Does that mean that homosexuals are "lesser"? That is frankly not my opinion, nor do I think it is implied in saying that a homosexual union is different from a heterosexual marriage. It is different.

Huh? Gay people are individuals with distinct personalities. They're not all caricature clones. If Sue and Jane get married, it's not Sue marrying herself. Sue and Jane are as different as Sue and Bob. What would be different about the marriages other than possibly genitalia? Bob could have suffered some tragic industrial accident and be a Ken doll for that matter. My marriage vows, which were pretty "traditional" for a US Protestant church wedding, mentioned nothing about children, nor was there anything in the vow that would be different in a homosexual relationship. Love, honor, cherish, sickness/health, richer/poorer, long as we both shall live. Nothing that I couldn't promise another female.

[LucyStoner]

In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of American gays are not interested in getting married.

This is a baseless claim. There are many gay and straight people who don't wish to marry. Yes. But many of both groups want to marry, now or in the future.

 

One study I read said over half of young unmarried LGBT people surveyed wanted to marry, about a 1/3 were unsure and 15% said no. So fewer than 1 in 6 say never.

 

And we all know that young people who say they are never getting married are totally never getting married, right? I would be one of those young people who when asked said I was never getting married. We celebrate our 13th wedding anniversary early next year.

[LizItaly]

Have you surveyed the "vast majority of American gays"?  How many people in this category do you know.

 

Some restaurants didn't completely refuse to sell meals to black people. They just sold the food from a back door and black couldn't eat on premises.

 

If you run a business, you provide the same service to everyone. The same. You can't say well certain people can have my top products and everyone else can have my lesser products.

 

 

An interesting article on who is not getting married.

 

I'm pretty sure the baker would have sold the gay couple a birthday cake right there in the front of the store.  Again, not the client.  The event.  No "lesser products" involved.

[LizItaly]

This is a baseless claim. There are many gay and straight people who don't wish to marry. Yes. But many of both groups want to marry, now or in the future.

 

One study I read said over half of young unmarried LGBT people surveyed wanted to marry, about a 1/3 were unsure and 15% said no. So fewer than 1 in 6 say never.

 

And we all know that young people who say they are never getting married are totally never getting married, right?

 

I would be one of those young people who when asked said I was never getting married. We celebrate our 13th wedding anniversary early next year.

 

Congratulations on your upcoming anniversary.

 

I never made a claim.  I made a guess, based on what I have read.  If this turns out to be wrong, then my guess is wrong, and I will willingly say so.  

[bettyandbob]

An interesting article on who is not getting married.

 

I'm pretty sure the baker would have sold the gay couple a birthday cake right there in the front of the store.  Again, not the client.  The event.  No "lesser products" involved.

 

It is a lesser product. You can have a this cake but not that one. Definitely a lesser product if the one you are refusing to offer is the one the member of the public wants. A cake is not an event. A cake is a cake.

 

As a business you make all your products available to all customers.

[LucyStoner]

An interesting article on who is not getting married.

 

I'm pretty sure the baker would have sold the gay couple a birthday cake right there in the front of the store. Again, not the client. The event. No "lesser products" involved.

You said "most gays" didn't want to marry. That article said 60 percent did. 40 percent is not by any measure "most". I know, and the article mentions, many straight people also feel this way about marriage.

 

Also, please address WHY it is ok for gay families to have fewer protections, rights and benefits under the law than straight families? Again, no one is answering this question.

[hornblower]

 

 

I never made a claim.  I made a guess, based on what I have read.  If this turns out to be wrong, then my guess is wrong, and I will willingly say so.  

 

"The data was sampled between July 2010 and January 2011, across several hundred lesbian, gay and LGBT digital media websites, hosted by Gay Ad Network - America's largest online collected gay media platform. Sample size was 6,712 responses - obtained from across all 50 States of the USA, and the District of Columbia.

 

Almost seven in ten respondents (68.77%) said they hope to get married, and a further one in twelve (8.15%) said they had already undertaken some marriage, or marriage-like, ceremony with a partner.

 

15% of US respondents say they would never marry, even if legal marriages were to become available to them."  source

[ChocolateReignRemix]

An interesting article on who is not getting married.

 

I'm pretty sure the baker would have sold the gay couple a birthday cake right there in the front of the store.  Again, not the client.  The event.  No "lesser products" involved.

 

But they wanted a wedding cake.

Which the baker sells to everyone else.

But he said no, because...gay.

 

No different than telling blacks they could still eat in the diner bit couldn't sit where they wanted.  I mean come on - they still got a burger.  Why did they have to be so uppity and ask to be treated the same? A burger is a burger.

[LucyStoner]

Congratulations on your upcoming anniversary.

 

I never made a claim. I made a guess, based on what I have read. If this turns out to be wrong, then my guess is wrong, and I will willingly say so.

The very article you linked disproves your claim.

 

You said:

 

"In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of American gays are not interested in getting married."

 

The article said:

 

"According to a Pew Research poll released in June, 60 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults are married or said they wanted to marry". http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/style/gay-couples-choosing-to-say-i-dont.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1

 

40 percent who are a mix of unsure or not wanting to marry is not "the vast majority" of gay people not wanting to marry.

 

It honestly seems you linked an article that you have not carefully read or perhaps just read the headline. Making the guess you did after completely reading that article makes it clear that you were only absorbing what you wanted it to say. That some gay people (and straight people) reject marriage as a pointless or dated or sexist institution does not mean marriage shouldn't be available to all couple equally.

[LizItaly]

You said "most gays" didn't want to marry. That article said 60 percent did. 40 percent is not by any measure "most". I know, and the article mentions, many straight people also feel this way about marriage.

 

Also, please address WHY it is ok for gay families to have fewer protections, rights and benefits under the law than straight families? Again, no one is answering this question.

 

I willingly concede your point on the percentage who wish to marry.  

 

Not sure you are asking me to address why gay families should have fewer protections, etc., as I have never argued that they should. 

[Mrs Mungo]

An interesting article on who is not getting married.

 

I'm pretty sure the baker would have sold the gay couple a birthday cake right there in the front of the store.  Again, not the client.  The event.  No "lesser products" involved.

Public accommodations laws say that you can't do that. If you sell wedding cakes, then you have to sell them to everyone. Here is a summary of the Colorado law from their regulatory department:

Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics). Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service ; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation. A place of public accommodation can be a: bar; restaurant; financial institution; school or educational institution; health club; theater; hospital; museum or zoo; hotel or motel; public club; retail store; medical clinic; public transportation; nursing home; recreational facility or park; and library.

Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth.

 

The bolded is mine. You can't offer a birthday cake in place of a wedding cake. That is denial of full and equal service.

 

Here is the text of the law:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

 

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

 

The Colorado law has been upheld as Constitutional. This means it is illegal and unconsitutional to refuse to sell a wedding cake to someone in Colorado based upon: disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin or ancestry. You have to sell it to an interracial couple, even if you believe interracial marriage is against the Bible. You are NOT required to own a business open to the public. You can have a private club that people have to join and sign a paper swearing they are a white, straight, virginal, never previous married couple if you want. But, you can't do that if you are a business that is open to the general public. That's what the law says.

 

Again, the law has been upheld as constitutional. That means that if what you want is to be able to do whatever you want, regardless of other people's rights, then what you need to do is to get rid of the constitution.

[LucyStoner]

I willingly concede your point on the percentage who wish to marry.

 

Not sure you are asking me to address why gay families should have fewer protections, etc., as I have never argued that they should.

It really doesn't need to be you. Just can ANYONE address this point? You said:

 

"Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not prevent homosexuals from bonding, or even encourage them to bond with heterosexuals. It simply does not call that marriage.

 

Words have meaning. When we use the word "marriage" figuratively, we mean the union of two disparate things, e.g., "The dish was a marriage of traditional French and exotic Vietnamese flavors." We would never say, "The dish was a marriage of traditional French flavors and traditional French flavors."

 

That doesn't mean two gay people cannot have a meaningful, committed, lifelong union. But it is not the same as a marriage. Does that mean that homosexuals are "lesser"? That is frankly not my opinion, nor do I think it is implied in saying that a homosexual union is different from a heterosexual marriage. It is different."

 

Limiting gay families from marriage DID and DOES grant them fewer rights, protections and benefits. No civil unions afforded couples as many state and federal rights and marriage. My brother is a SAHD with two daughters. Besides what it means to his husband and him personally, practically speaking it is only marriage that protects him and his children the same as other caregiving spouses with young children.

 

ETA- denying them marriage, offering them a separate classification if anything at all is not recognizing that they are of equal value.

[swimmermom3]

My religious beliefs are such that discriminating against gay couples and breaking the law in doing so is no different from a white person refusing service to a black person, men refusing the service of their business to women, engaging in slavery, supporting apartheid, ....it is all the same. The tone from the other side has been quite offensive, but apparently that's okay.  So, I'll delete my recent posts and leave all of you to it.

 

Done.

 

:grouphug: I think in these conversations it's important to keep content and tone separate in our minds.

 

If you ask for viewpoints from the "opposition" as I believe Cammie is doing here, that's what you are going to get. If you (general) ask for viewpoints then I assume one is seeking understanding. I don't think we are going to see any conversions, especially by beating each other up.

 

You can disagree with the content of the post, but that doesn't automatically mean that the tone is disrespectful. Right?

 

With regards to tone, in my opinion, there have been posts that are offensive in tone on both sides. When one feels passionately about an issue, it can be difficult not to take cheap shots - ask me how I know this. :tongue_smilie:

 

There have also been posts that have been respectful in tone on both sides. I may not agree with Maize, but I "liked" her posts because she put time and effort into sharing her perspective and she did so without attacking anyone.

[Pam in CT]

re: heterosexual unions aimed at creation of biological children as "ideal" for marriage:

...I believe that including homosexual unions within the concept of marriage reinforces a conceptualization of marriage focused more on the rights and privileges of adults than the bearing and rearing of children.

 

I believe that a concept of marriage founded on the union of potential fathers and mothers as a secure foundation for the bearing and rearing of children is most beneficial to society....

 

 

I think some of us are just looking at things from such different points of reference that it is difficult to make terms and meanings clear. That is unfortunate but maybe inevitable.

Maize, thanks for hanging in here... and I totally get having periodically to step away to regroup.

 

As I said in our exchange yesterday, my personal "ideal" for the optimal environment in which children are raised is more similar to yours than different.  And I think your point about how it makes a difference if we frame the question of marriage from adluts, vs. from the perspective of children, is interesting.  I think you may be right - that difference may well drive very different perspectives.... I've been mulling over a few examples:  

 

• My widowed father-in-law recently remarried.  He is 82; his (delightful) new wife is a few years younger.  For a variety of logistical reasons, they were married in City Hall; we had a big family celebration a few days later.  They will not have children.

 

• A dear friend of mine from school survived ovarian cancer.  She met and married her now-husband years later.  A justice of the peace married them by the beach.  Because of surgeries related to her illness, they knew going into the marriage they would not have biological children.  They adopted.

 

• To our great joy, recently two fellow congregants, both of them widowed, were married by our rabbi.  He has college-aged children; she has one in high school.  They will not have more.

 

 

None of these couples will have biological children.  None of them conform to the "ideal pattern" you expressed, which as you said, is organized around a view of children...

 

Yet, all three couples are unequivocally married in the eyes of the law.   When they submit their taxes, they check "married."  When they submit an insurance claim, the form says "married."  When they inevitably arrive at end-of-life issues, the hospital and probate courts will consider them "married."  As a matter of law, we do not link access to "marriage" with the ability or intention to have biological children, nor have we ever.

 

 

With perhaps one exception (and even she may well have spoken hastily), all board members who have weighed in thus far, also consider all three of these couples to be "married."  

 

I don't recall seeing a post of yours weighing in specifically on whether you personally consider non-sacramental marriages, or marriages between couple known to be infertile or post-menopausal, to be desirable and/or valid under your own religious tradition.  I think yesterday you suggested that such unions "stretched" the biologically-based ideal but did not "shatter" it?  (Please tell me if I am not getting this quite right -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth -- I started this post and don't know how now, mid-stream, to go back and add a new quote to get it right.)

 

Certainly, though, however you view such unions religiously, you have never indicated that these sorts of heterosexual but biologically issue-less marriages are invalid or undesirable under civil law.  You have never argued that your biological-child-centric ideal should form the basis of limiting heterosexual access to marriage.  You have never argued that such couples should not be permitted to marry.

 

 

As a legal matter, the US has never limited marriage to unions capable of biological children.  Marriage has always been open to octogenarians; young couples have never had to provide proof of fertility or attest (to the government) willingness to be open to procreation.  

 

As a society, we have *never* defined marriage around a biological-child-centric perspective; we have *always* defined it around -- as you put it -- the rights and privileges of the adults entering into the union.... And that focus -- that marriage is a matter between the adults freely entering into the union (rather than the potential children who might or might not arise from the union) -- has never to my knowledge been legally challenged...

 

 

 

As I said yesterday, I understand and actually share, more or less, your ideal about children.  I get the ideal, but can't see how it has any more bearing on SSM than it does on the rights of infertile or elderly or just-don't-want-children couples to marry...

 

As you yourself said, the ideal is about children; marriage -- as a legal matter; I don't mean as a sacramental matter within your religious tradition or any other -- is and has always been about adults...  

 

 

 

 

 

(meh... I'm rambling... sorry.  Off to ponder more on this.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Momof3]

Okay. I sincerely apologize for not having read this whole thread before posting. And I also apologize for conveying some things I did not intend to communicate - and for communicating other things I should have kept to myself. :) 

 

This:

 

Anymore, if you say, "This is wrong, I disagree", you become someone who is hateful or stupid and is somehow hurting society by saying so.  And that is the concern.

 

I feel like I think it is really rude to barge into such a long conversation only having skimmed the first page. I don't think you know the context of what has been said, the arguments made or the tone of the discussion. If you don't have time for the conversation, then you don't have time for the conversation. Shouting your two cents into a long, mostly respectful discussion is not respectful of the time and effort other people have made. Don't you think you should first seek to understand what others have said and listen to *them* before interjecting your opinion into a long conversation?

My apologies. I was only responding to the first page. Which is why I mentioned that I hadn't read the rest of the conversation. I wasn't trying to shout. Just emphasize. Sorry for putting my words in caps. Lesson learned. From what I saw on the first page, the initial poster asked for feedback, and I was giving some. 

 

It's also rude to speak for other people and label them "loosely Christian." I am a Christian. I might have different beliefs than you about the political arena, I might even have different beliefs regarding how the church views some matters, but that doesn't make me less Christian than you. You don't think my religion informs my beliefs? You don't think I've studied and put thought into them? Do you *not* believe in John 3:16? I think any Christian presuming to label another as non-Christian or only "loosely" Christian has a pretty large beam in their eye to worry about.

I am also sincerely sorry that you take offense with "loosely Christian." When I used the term, I did not mean to refer to people who don't agree with me. At all. I should have chosen my words more carefully. I meant people who say they're Christians, but also say they don't believe what the Bible says. If that's not you, I wasn't referring to you. Please don't read more into my words than what I said. 

 

Worse than fornicating? Gossip? Divorce? Remarriage? Adultery? If not, then why is there a hyper-focus on homosexuality? Even *if* someone agrees that homosexuality is a sin, Christians are putting the cart before the horse to insist the secular society, non-religious people and people of other religions should follow your religion. We have the establishment clause for a reason. Separation of church and state was the expectation of our founding fathers. Here is a really good article on that from the Library of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/l...06/danbury.html

No, not at all. All sin is wicked in God's sight. Every sin. And I never said and never would "insist" that secular society, follow my religion. I do believe in separation of church and state. I don't think I ever said anything to the contrary. 

 

And boycotting Chick-Fil-A is not wrong. There's a difference between boycotting and having kissing sessions in their restaurants. 

 

Also...and this is hard for me to say. You are not supposed to be tolerant because other people are tolerant to you. As Christians we are supposed to do unto others and be kind, no matter what. It is the second greatest commandment, according to Christ himself.

Yes, you are right. And thank you for the reminder. :) Maybe I should rephrase what I said. Many homosexuals are 

 

I think you mean privilege, not freedom. Nobody is taking away the freedom of Christians to worship. 

No, I meant freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of worship. I was only expressing the fears of myself & other Christians I know. That concessions here (redefining marriage, opening bathrooms for any gender, teaching young children about gay sex, etc.) will only lead to more... The Houston mayor demanding pastor's sermons is exactly the sort of thing I am afraid of. In the name of "tolerance," all who disagree are not tolerated. 

 

Anyhow...I hope you all accept my apologies. That's what I get for trying to answer the IP's question in 20 min or less. :) 

[Momof3]

Sorry. DP

[Momof3]

nm

[maize]

 

Hi Pam,

 

I appreciate your thoughtful response. If you don't mind I think I will try to reply via PM when I get some time (please remind me if I forget, we have a busy day today); I don't think I can really go deeper than I have without discussing more of my personal religious beliefs and understanding, and I'm not not sure this thread is the place for that. It seems that things too easily devolve into a discussion of the rightness/wrongness of perceptions and beliefs; my original intent in posting was to try to help people see my perspective and understand why I personally feel compelled to take a particular public stand, not to attempt to persuade people of the correctness of my position.

[Love]

.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Pam in CT]

Hi Pam,

 

I appreciate your thoughtful response. If you don't mind I think I will try to reply via PM when I get some time (please remind me if I forget, we have a busy day today); I don't think I can really go deeper than I have without discussing more of my personal religious beliefs and understanding, and I'm not not sure this thread is the place for that. It seems that things to easily devolve into a discussion of the rightness/wrongness of perceptions and beliefs; my original intent in posting was to try to help people see my perspective and understand why I personally feel compelled to take a particular public stand, not to attempt to persuade people of the correctness of my position.

 

Of course.  And... :grouphug: ...I don't mean to probe you farther than you're comfortable with... just trying to understand in so far as you're willing to share.  I look forward to hearing from you when / if you get to it.

[Vera]

Congratulations on your upcoming anniversary.

 

I never made a claim. I made a guess, based on what I have read. If this turns out to be wrong, then my guess is wrong, and I will willingly say so.

My son wants to get married and that is enough for me.

[*Lulu*]

Really, it's more than a matter of just 'why not ?'

 

As a non-believer I have actual reasons for why I think marriage equality is a good thing - it's not just a view that exists because of my inner moral vacuum.

Exactly.

 

As a believer I have the same.

 

Even if I believed that God will bring his judgement against homosexuals, which I don't, I would STILL not want my religious beliefs to be the law just because they were my religious beliefs.

 

I just want to point it out, one more time, there are Christians who not only support same sex marriage, but also do NOT believe homosexuality to be a sin.

 

We read the Bible and everything.

 

We just interpret it differently.

[Love]

 

.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Mrs Mungo]

It's also rude to speak for other people and label them "loosely Christian." I am a Christian. I might have different beliefs than you about the political arena, I might even have different beliefs regarding how the church views some matters, but that doesn't make me less Christian than you. You don't think my religion informs my beliefs? You don't think I've studied and put thought into them? Do you *not* believe in John 3:16? I think any Christian presuming to label another as non-Christian or only "loosely" Christian has a pretty large beam in their eye to worry about.[/size]

I am also sincerely sorry that you take offense with "loosely Christian." When I used the term, I did not mean to refer to people who don't agree with me. At all. I should have chosen my words more carefully. I meant people who say they're Christians, but also say they don't believe what the Bible says. If that's not you, I wasn't referring to you. Please don't read more into my words than what I said. 

When you make broad statements, then you hit people you didn't intend to hit. That's not reading into your words. Do I believe in The Bible? Yes. Do I necessarily agree with your interpretation of The Bible? Probably not all of it.

 

My (female) cousin has a seminary degree. She is ordained. She serves as a deacon in her church, a church which accepts homosexuals. The church rejects some people's understanding of the scripture. She chose her church based upon her knowledge, study, beliefs and personal relationship with God. They differ than yours. That doesn't mean that she "doesn't believe what The Bible says."

 

And boycotting Chick-Fil-A is not wrong. There's a difference between boycotting and having kissing sessions in their restaurants. 

No, it's really not. If you care about the constitution, then you should care about the right to free assembly. They weren't hurting anyone, even though I'm sure some people didn't like it. They weren't doing anything illegal. Protesting is a very American way of disagreeing with the actions of government or a company. But, it is very important to note that they were protesting the company's *actions*, not their *beliefs*.

 

I think you mean privilege, not freedom. Nobody is taking away the freedom of Christians to worship. 

No, I meant freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of worship. I was only expressing the fears of myself & other Christians I know. That concessions here (redefining marriage, opening bathrooms for any gender, teaching young children about gay sex, etc.) will only lead to more... The Houston mayor demanding pastor's sermons is exactly the sort of thing I am afraid of. In the name of "tolerance," all who disagree are not tolerated. 

Fears are not truths. I know some people in the older generation who do not like the power that some black people hold. They fear it. That doesn't mean that their fear is correct.

 

I don't know what you're talking about with the Houston thing, you would have to provide a link with facts before anyone can comment on what they think about it. The onus is not on us to prove your case.

[Love]

. 

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[LizItaly]

Public accommodations laws say that you can't do that. If you sell wedding cakes, then you have to sell them to everyone. Here is a summary of the Colorado law from their regulatory department:

Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics). Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service ; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation. A place of public accommodation can be a: bar; restaurant; financial institution; school or educational institution; health club; theater; hospital; museum or zoo; hotel or motel; public club; retail store; medical clinic; public transportation; nursing home; recreational facility or park; and library.

Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth.

 

The bolded is mine. You can't offer a birthday cake in place of a wedding cake. That is denial of full and equal service.

 

Here is the text of the law:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

 

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

 

The Colorado law has been upheld as Constitutional. This means it is illegal and unconsitutional to refuse to sell a wedding cake to someone in Colorado based upon: disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin or ancestry. You have to sell it to an interracial couple, even if you believe interracial marriage is against the Bible. You are NOT required to own a business open to the public. You can have a private club that people have to join and sign a paper swearing they are a white, straight, virginal, never previous married couple if you want. But, you can't do that if you are a business that is open to the general public. That's what the law says.

 

Again, the law has been upheld as constitutional. That means that if what you want is to be able to do whatever you want, regardless of other people's rights, then what you need to do is to get rid of the constitution.

 

Though I understand the intentions behind it, I think the law is unconstitutional as it limits unduly freedom of association, speech, and religion.  I'd love to see the SCOTUS decision if you have a source.  It is possible, as you surely know, and not uncommon for reasonable people to disagree with the Supreme Court from time to time.  This does not mean we need to throw out the Constitution.

 

For more explanation of this viewpoint, here's Jacob Sullum, David Harsanyi, and Scott Shackford heavily quoting Richard Epstein.  They say it far better than I can.

[*Lulu*]

Now this is something I don't understand.

 

Jesus said God made it one man and one woman in the beginning.

 

I'm sure you know these verses, but here is Jesus speaking:

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,^a 8and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.â€

10And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.â€

 

But I know that's not the topic of this thread, and really- to each his own.

Short answer- the modern church has painted itself into a corner by insisting that the Bible is a thing is was never meant to be. It is not a word for word literal account of Israel's history or any other history. It is not the WORD of God, that is Jesus. It is a set of writings, divinely inspired, but also set forth through the lens of humans with failings and biases that has been interpreted by each new generation through their cultural lens.

 

There is more of culture than Christ in the evangelical American church and not everyone thinks that the only way to be a Christian is by belief in sola scriptura.

[Mrs Mungo]

Now this is something I don't understand.

I know this is wikipedia, but it has a decent overview of what various churches and theologians think and why they think that way. It also lists quite a few names that you could research, if you are interested in learning more.

 

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

[Mrs Mungo]

Though I understand the intentions behind it, I think the law is unconstitutional as it limits unduly freedom of association, speech, and religion.

The Civil Rights Act, you mean? And public accommodation laws? Sure, here is a whole list:

 

 http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/supremecourt.html

 

 

 

I'd love to see the SCOTUS decision if you have a source.  It is possible, as you surely know, and not uncommon for reasonable people to disagree with the Supreme Court from time to time.  This does not mean we need to throw out the Constitution.

If one believes (and I'm not saying that you do) that their personal religion is the only one that exceptions should be made for, then yes, you'd have to throw out the constitution to get to that place, IMO.

[LizItaly]

Exactly.

 

As a believer I have the same.

 

Even if I believed that God will bring his judgement against homosexuals, which I don't, I would STILL not want my religious beliefs to be the law just because they were my religious beliefs.

 

I just want to point it out, one more time, there are Christians who not only support same sex marriage, but also do NOT believe homosexuality to be a sin.

 

We read the Bible and everything.

 

We just interpret it differently.

 

The argument is not to make certain religious beliefs the law, but rather to allow individuals to behave as they see fit according to their religion, moral code, etc..  Catholics and protestants differ, and within protestantism, there are huge differences, too.  Jews and Muslims are different from Christians.  They all want to be free from being required to do something which conflicts with their faith.

[Pam in CT]

I am as conservative as they come, and I pray I would be strong enough to die for my faith before I denied it.

 

But I think that if a person is not a Christian (or coming from a similar belief system), there really is no way to explain to them that two people of the same sex should not be married.  The idea of a marriage being between a man and a woman only, is something I think we Christians take on faith, and it can't be explained in human reasoning.  Because really, using just human reasoning, why *can't* two men or two women get married?  

 

It takes faith to believe God made the world, and that God made them male and female in the beginning, and it was all His plan.  

If a person does not accept the Bible as God's Word, I can see why they would also accept same sex marriage, because - why not?  

 

<snipping marijuana example for brevity...>

 

 

I think laws are necessary if someone is going to get hurt (don't murder, don't steal, etc.) but the world's government (which God ordained to keep basic law and order) has that covered, and Jesus never told me, as a New Testament Christian, to police non-believers.  He told me to love them, and He gave me plenty of other things to do, too.

 

Just my humble opinion...  but I think God wants people to follow Him from their hearts (because Christians are reaching out to them and showing them Jesus), and not just grudgingly obey because they are forced to outwardly, by man-made laws.  

 

I know when there are laws against things I want to do that don't hurt anybody else, all it does is make me feel frustrated.  It doesn't make change my mind or think they're right.  

 

PlainMom, I think I follow at least part of what you're getting at.... my faith tradition (even the parts of the spectrum more observant than the part I belong to) teaches that certain items (for example, eating pork has already been raised on this thread) are prohibited to us, but are OK for other groups... it wouldn't be appropriate (even within our religious context) to abridge other groups' access to them, or to impose obligations we see as meant for us onto others...

 

... and achieving accommodation between competing interests of a pluralist population within the civil space requires yet further care...

 

 

 

and,  :iagree: and  :lol: to the bolded.  Like, how frustrating is it, that Kinder Eggs (the real ones, not these wannabes) are not allowed??!

[kiana]

Plainmom, I just want to say, welcome to the boards and you sound like a really nice person. 

[Mrs Mungo]

PlainMom, I think I follow at least part of what you're getting at.... my faith tradition (even the parts of the spectrum more observant than the part I belong to) teaches that certain items (for example, eating pork has already been raised on this thread) are prohibited to us, but are OK for other groups... it wouldn't be appropriate (even within our religious context) to abridge other groups' access to them, or to impose obligations we see as meant for us onto others...

 

... and achieving accommodation between competing interests of a pluralist population within the civil space requires yet further care...

Right. Here's how this plays out in the public sphere:

 

A Jewish couple who owns a diner doesn't have to sell double bacon cheeseburgers.

 

BUT

 

They can't sell double bacon cheeseburgers cooked by their line cook (who isn't Jewish) to Christians but refuse to sell them to Muslims or Jews. That would be against the law.

 

They can avoid violating their conscience by not selling them at all.

[Amira]

The argument is not to make certain religious beliefs the law, but rather to allow individuals to behave as they see fit according to their religion, moral code, etc..  Catholics and protestants differ, and within protestantism, there are huge differences, too.  Jews and Muslims are different from Christians.  They all want to be free from being required to do something which conflicts with their faith.

 

But what happens when one person's faith conflicts with another person's civil rights?  Should religious conviction trump civil rights in a secular society?

 

I agree that it would be wrong if all bakers had some sort of requirement to make wedding cakes for gay marriages.  But they don't.  Bakers can make all sorts of things and none have to make wedding cakes.  They also can do wedding cakes as a private business and sell by word of mouth to whomever they want to (or refuse to sell to people they don't want to sell to).  

 

What everyone is required to do is to follow public accommodation law in exchange for the legal benefits they get for setting up a public business. If those laws don't fit your religious beliefs, then don't try to get the benefits too.

[LizItaly]

The Civil Rights Act, you mean? And public accommodation laws? Sure, here is a whole list:

 

 http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/supremecourt.html

 

 

 

If one believes (and I'm not saying that you do) that their personal religion is the only one that exceptions should be made for, then yes, you'd have to throw out the constitution to get to that place, IMO.

 

You said that the Colorado law had been upheld as constitutional.  That implies that there was a challenge.  Perhaps you are referring to Romer?  That struck down a referendum, but as far as I know, the Court never directly addressed the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation laws.  However, I have not been following Colorado law, so I could easily be wrong on that.

 

There is no right to a cake.  For anyone.  But there is a right to freedom religion.  Public accommodation laws that go far beyond the original Title II of the Civil Rights act are are problematic, in my view.

 

Did anyone have a peek at the articles I linked?  Richard Epstein is worth a look.

 

ETA: I most certainly do not think my religious views are the only ones which should be protected.  That much, at least, should be abundantly clear from what I have written.

[Matryoshka]

...

While reality never entirely matches ideals, the perceived ideal, the type as a guiding principle of society, should not be undervalued. Yes, some children will be born out of wedlock. Yes, some marriages will be infertile. Some marriages will not be mutually supportive. Some parents will fail in their responsibilities towards their children. Some divorces will be inevitable. As long as the type stands as a guiding principle, however, it exerts a sort of gravitational pull: people will seek to approximate the type.

 

Finally entering the fray... ;)

 

Maize, I had to respond to this because actually this matches my feelings on the matter very closely - except that I come to exactly the opposite conclusion on gay marriage because of it.  I do think that the family unit is an ideal, a very important and fundamental institution that is central to a stable and healthy society. 

 

And reality never entirely matches ideals. I agree with you again.  I don't see how it matters one whit if the marital couple are of the same sex, any more than if a child is adopted.  Are adopted children less a part of a family unit because they are not genetically related, or they are not with their biological parents?

 

I think it is vitally unhealthy to demand that homosexual people try to 'change' or 'pass'.  I have seen the destruction this wreaks.  My friend married a man who lied to himself about who he was for years.  He was actively hostile to gays, even (sometimes the most threatened are worried about their own feelings).  It wasn't until they'd had a kid, the house, and everything he thought would finally make him 'get over' those feelings that he came out.  Did my friend deserve to have a husband that really wasn't attracted to her at all?  Shouldn't everyone have a partner that truly desires to be with them?

 

What do you expect homosexuals to do?  All become monks and nuns (for those faiths that even offer that path)?  What if they're not religious?  Be celibate? Just have relationships out of wedlock?  How is that healthier for society than trying to go for that ideal we both hold up?  I'd much rather have gay people be able to be who they are, marry who they love, raise kids (whether adopted or by other means - and gay parents are not the only ones using 'other means' - lots of infertile couples are using egg/sperm donation and surrogates - so they wouldn't be doing anything different from many straight parents there either).  They do see that ideal. Many of them aspire to that ideal.  They want to spend the rest of their lives with the person they fall in love with, and raise a family.  Just like everyone else.

 

Yes, two loving parents raising kids is the ideal.  Which is exactly why I so strongly support gay marriage.

[Love]

 

.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Pam in CT]

re: Jewish deli protocol  :lol: :

Right. Here's how this plays out in the public sphere:

A Jewish couple who owns a diner doesn't have to sell double bacon cheeseburgers.

BUT

They can't sell double bacon cheeseburgers cooked by their line cook (who isn't Jewish) to Christians but refuse to sell them to Muslims or Jews. That would be against the law.

They can avoid violating their conscience by not selling them at all.

 

Yes.  And even within the teachings of our faith tradition, it would be inappropriate -- not just unnecessary, inappropriate -- for us to impose obligations we understand to have been passed down to us, on others who have not been so obliged.

 

 

(FTR, it's very hard to imagine the deli outsourcing bacon-cheeseburger-flipping to a non-Jewish cook... too many complications re effect on other observant customers, let alone pots and pans etc,  for it to be a remotely feasible solution... but that's neither here nor there.  The solution would be simply not to serve, at all, to anyone, what we believe to be restricted to us.  That's what kosher delis really do IRL.)