The Forge Archives

I've yet to hear an argument why gay marriage should be illegal that I can't completely dismantle in one word - 'discrimination'.

Yet, the majority of the populace here in the states is opposed to gay marriage.  I have trouble believing that the majority doesn't have a rational reason.

So please, somebody, give me a rational reason for why gay marriage should be illegal and restore my faith in the american people.

I made that post.

Anybody?

My friend Ampersand (http://amptoons.poliblog.com/blog/) quotes the results of a Pew Research Center poll.  Here are the reasons Americans who're opposed to same-sex marriage give:

QuoteA) 28% Morally wrong / a sin / the Bible says
B) 17% Against my religious beliefs
C) 16% Definition of marriage is a man & a woman
D) 12% It's just wrong / I just don't agree with it
E) 9% Homosexuality is not natural/normal
F) 4% Purpose of marriage is to have children
G) 2% Bad for children
H) 2% Opens the door to other immoral behavior
I) 1% Undermines traditional family
J) 1% Don't have stable, long-term relationships
K) 1% Causes economic/legal problems
L) 3% Other
M) 4% Don't know/Refused

Are any of those rational?  Nope.  

Sorry about your faith in the American people thing.

-Vincent

I have yet to hear an argument that isn't based on either religion (which should be irrelevant) or "but, it's not how things have been done in the past!" So, I'm of no help to you here. I can't think of any reason why tax-paying, consenting adults shouldn't have their marriage recognized.

The only thing wrong with gay marriage is that it's not legal.

You have trouble believing that the majority doesn't have a rational reason?  Why?  Of course they don't have a rational reason.  I think they're just put off by change.

Chris

*shrug* Beats me. I have yet to hear one single, good reason.

Quote from: Cruciel, under the guise of anonymity,I have trouble believing that the majority doesn't have a rational reason.

My advice would be to start believing it.

this, is the best, non-bigoted argument against gay marriage I'm aware of:
http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107
the basic point is, that marriage is to some extent a hassle, that it takes time and effort and dedication and that it does indeed function as a social norm which keeps people in line. By redefining marriage as a purely voluntary act of people in love (de-emphasising the commitment aspect) we are – according to this argument – about to loose (a) social cohesion and (b) an institution, which emphasises the role/value of commitment, which places commitment to another person right in the middle of our society, .. and thus naturally colours social reality.

I don't agree with this, my brief summary doesn't do it justice and I think the argument contains some assumptions which don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it's the only argument against gay marraige, whose point I can see and which I can't dismiss as 'discrimination'.

There are actually some economic reasons to oppose it.  I can't say that I think they are big enough to matter, but since no one has yet proferred them I will do so.

A lot of the reluctance to gay marriages comes from the insurance industry.  Most employer insurance policies also cover the spouse, and many plans (auto insurance, life, etc) give discounts for married couples.  There is a measurable cost to expanding the definition of marriage.  I've heard numbers from the several hundred million into the billions.  All of which will be passed on the the customer base, which basically means existing policy holders will be subsidizing benefits for gay couples.  I have heard proposals that suggest gay couples should have to pay a higher premium to make up for it, so it is an issue that people are basing decisions on.

One interesting source of cost is the expense to reinvent all of the life expectancy based actuarial tables.  These tables are really extensive and really require a ton of number crunching and are almost always based on the expentency of a couple being a man and a woman.  A life insurance salesman of mine indicated that his company currently has no idea how to price a "last to die" policy for same sex couples.  There just isn't enough data to do anything but guess.  And guessing in the insurance business means additional risk.  And additional risk means higher premiums for everyone.

Now...I haven't seen number for what the cost of this might be from anyone other than the insurance companies themselves...so obviously the numbers are suspect.

But it is a reason that has been given that has nothing to do with religion or discrimination or fiddly definitions of marriage, and everything to do with what lies at the root of most controversial laws...money, how much it'll cost and who gets to pay for it.

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a286




;-)

Quote from: ValamirA lot of the reluctance to gay marriages comes from the insurance industry.  

Hey Ralph:

You can guess at my level of sympathy toward insurance companies. :-)

Gay marriage is considered wrong out of pure bigotry.  All those reasons Vincent listed are, in fact, stock rationalizations for bigotry.  You don't see all that many people these days going around saying, "You know what?  I hate black people for no reason."  No, they say, "Well, of course, they're fine, but you know, they shouldn't be allowed to get into schools and stuff, because you know, they get all violent, and that unsettles the schools, and I know it's not their fault, it's those terrible neighborhoods, and...."  Guess what?  That's bigotry.  That's just a really polite way to lie to yourself about what amounts to: "Keep them darkies out of my kid's school!  I hate 'em!"  Similarly, all those cute rationalizations really boil down to, "I am against gay marriage because I don't think them fags deserve rights like other people, because they're sick and nasty."  Then clean it up for public consumption and it's, "Oh god, what about the children?"  Whine whine.  <slap>

Sorry, I'm a little cranky.

QuoteHey Ralph:

You can guess at my level of sympathy toward insurance companies. :-)

Probably about the same as mine.  The fucktards just tried to terminate my insurance today by giving me a notice yesterday on a $25 fee they levied that I didn't pay cause they never told me about despite their automated system telling me I had "no balance due"  Fuck 'em.

But, truth be told, I have about the same feeling towards marriage as an institution.  I've been with my girlfriend for over 10 years.  We are totally committed to a life time together and I see no need to get a "stamp of approval" from the government or some minister saying "we're married".  As far as I'm concerned we're married cause we say we are.

So...assuming the insurance companies are right about the added costs (who knows the fuckers will use any excuse to jack premiums), I'm sure you can understand why I would be a little reluctant to pay an extra $5-10 a month on my insurance in order to give a gay couple the right to enter into an institution that I find to be essentially worthless anyway.

In my mind the amount of effort spent fighting for a right that has no intrinsic value makes about as much sense as the amount of effort spent fighting against it.

Quote from: montagthis, is the best, non-bigoted argument against gay marriage I'm aware of:
http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107
the basic point is, that marriage is to some extent a hassle, that it takes time and effort and dedication and that it does indeed function as a social norm which keeps people in line. By redefining marriage as a purely voluntary act of people in love (de-emphasising the commitment aspect) we are – according to this argument – about to loose (a) social cohesion and (b) an institution, which emphasises the role/value of commitment, which places commitment to another person right in the middle of our society, .. and thus naturally colours social reality.

I don't agree with this, my brief summary doesn't do it justice and I think the argument contains some assumptions which don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it's the only argument against gay marriage, whose point I can see and which I can't dismiss as 'discrimination'.

Yeah, assumptions about the sexes which are completely false (that men are by and large incapable of love, etc) and assumptions about the effect on society.  I'm actually having trouble not dismissing it as discrimination, because of the discriminatory assumptions the argument is founded upon.  Plus, some funny little inconsistencies; like that gay people do not understand the straight world, despite living in a world that is 95% straight; and that marriage is sacred because its not something special.  I can think of a similar argument for why black children shouldn't be allowed to go to school with white children - basically, that integration is hard and I like things the way they are, so I'd rather not.

Quote from: ValamirA lot of the reluctance to gay marriages comes from the insurance industry.  Most employer insurance policies also cover the spouse, and many plans (auto insurance, life, etc) give discounts for married couples.  There is a measurable cost to expanding the definition of marriage.  I've heard numbers from the several hundred million into the billions.  All of which will be passed on the the customer base, which basically means existing policy holders will be subsidizing benefits for gay couples.  I have heard proposals that suggest gay couples should have to pay a higher premium to make up for it, so it is an issue that people are basing decisions on.

[snip]

Whoa, that's interesting.  I guess I can't say it's discrimination.  Though, I bet you can guess what I'd have to say about corporate interests deciding what is and is not a family.  

I actually doubt the validity of the monetary loss.  My employer allows medical/dental insurance for domestic partnerships, and neither my employer or insurance company has gone bust (or exploded in a pillar of holy flame for that matter).

QuoteSo...assuming the insurance companies are right about the added costs (who knows the fuckers will use any excuse to jack premiums), I'm sure you can understand why I would be a little reluctant to pay an extra $5-10 a month on my insurance in order to give a gay couple the right to enter into an institution that I find to be essentially worthless anyway.

It makes quite a difference when dealing with inheritance (without wills) and adoption.  Worse yet, inheritance of guardianship of children.  Having to give your kid over to the state, right after losing a partner no less, because of a legal loophole is the ass.

Quote from: ValamirIn my mind the amount of effort spent fighting for a right that has no intrinsic value makes about as much sense as the amount of effort spent fighting against it.

Maybe it would be cheaper to get rid of marriage as an institution altogether. I wouldn't mind.

Here are some of the benefits of marriage though:

QuoteState-Granted Legal Marriage Rights  
Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits  

Federally-Granted Legal Marriage Rights
Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran's Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

But I think you're on target with the economic analysis, Ralph. It's about the $$, although not all of these benefits are financial. Or at least, the bigotry is backed up by considerations of cold hard cash. Denial of same-sex marriage is plain old financial discrimination.

--Emily

Quote from: Emily CareBut I think you're on target with the economic analysis, Ralph. It's about the $$, although not all of these benefits are financial. Or at least, the bigotry is backed up by considerations of cold hard cash. Denial of same-sex marriage is plain old financial discrimination.

Got an update on that.  According to the girl's research, insurance company costs would increase by 1% for those not currently supporting domestic partnerships (many already do).

Well, it's with a measure of trepidation that I weigh in on this thread.  But someone needs to stand up for the opposition, and since I believe that what is being called "gay marriage" is wrong, I figure that I'm the guy.  So here goes.

Hi.  My name is Seth Ben-Ezra.  Many of you know me around these parts as the guy who is (slowly) working on finishing Legends of Alyria.  Occasionally I weigh in on debates and discussions as well.  I would hope that, over the time that you have interacted with me in this forum, I have generally shown myself to be a calm, rational, logical person.  Those of you who have met me in person should also be able to testify to the nature of my character.

I am also a devout Christian, confessing the faith of my fathers.  I believe that the Bible was written by holy men who were writing the words of God.  I believe that the Bible is therefore inerrant and is the only rule of life, faith, and practice.*

As a result, as I examine the Bible, I see that God speaks to marriage.  He ordained and instituted marriage, and He established it to be a lifelong bond between a man and a woman, sealed by vows.  I therefore believe that it is not given to human beings to change or alter what God has established.**

Am I appealing to tradition?  No.  Tradition can be good, but it is not the final standard of action.   Am I appealing to economics?  Obviously not.  Am I being irrational?  I don't believe so.  I can map it out in the form of a syllogism in proper form and demonstrate its validity, if you wish.

So what's going on here?  Why is it that I apparently fit into a category reserved for those who are bigoted and irrational?

What is actually at stake here is this:  is the Bible the only rule of life, faith and practice?  This is the question that needs to be answered.  Obviously, if your answer is "Yes", then the issue before us resolves itself quietly.  However, if your answer is "No", then the true issue reveals itself.  At its heart, the issue of "gay marriage" is religious...for all of us.

Is this all irrelevant to the question of the legality of "gay marriage"?  By no means!  The Bible is clear that even governments must obey God.  Someone may claim that I am overreaching, that religion needs to stay out of the public arena.  But then aren't you imposing your beliefs about religion on me?  My religion demands that I bring it into the public arena.  Where is the tolerance now?  Or is it okay to discriminate against Christians now?  

Am I being a bigot?  I don't think so.  I have relatives who are homosexuals, and I do not despise them or look upon them as somehow "sub-human" or "not good enough".  At the same time, I cannot, in good conscience, say that what they are doing is acceptable in the eyes of God.

And that is the debate.  Under all the rhetoric, under all the name calling, lie two simple questions:

1)  Is this what God says?
2)  Do I want to obey Him?

I know that this forum will be closing soon, and I'm willing to continue this discussion via email or PM, if any of you wish.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

*As an aside, when I say "believe", I am not stating that which makes me feel happy or which I like.  Rather, I say "believe" to indicate a yielding to reality.  Kinda like saying "I believe that the sky is blue."  Religion is objective, not subjective.

**Obviously, this is an abbreviated argument for the sake of space and time.

Quote from: GreatWolf
1)  Is this what God says?

The basic response to that is: Which god and how do you know it was really he/she who said it?  If it is your god, how is he better than anyone elses?

Sorry to be so harsh - but this is the key - if we don't accept the Bible (in the version you prefer) as word of god on faith, then the strongest case against all sorts of homosexual issues just goes away.

Hey, Seth.  I may not agree with you, but I'm glad somebody came out to speak for the other point of view.  My question is, though, your religion (and everyone elses) is specifically removed from the issue when we are speaking about the United States government.

This isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a religious issue.  If the only grounds on which an official of this nation can come up with to deny a homosexual union are religious, then there are no valid grounds for that official to deny it.  The problem here is that the laws of our nation have been written in large part, by religious people, in accordance with religious doctrine, in violation of the "separation of Church and State" axiom.  The laws should either be changed, or we should just come out of the closet as a christian governed nation.

Thanks for weighing in, truly.  Though, I wish I could say something other than 'discrimination'. ;)

Quote from: GreatWolfSo what's going on here? Why is it that I apparently fit into a category reserved for those who are bigoted and irrational?

What is actually at stake here is this: is the Bible the only rule of life, faith and practice? This is the question that needs to be answered. Obviously, if your answer is "Yes", then the issue before us resolves itself quietly. However, if your answer is "No", then the true issue reveals itself. At its heart, the issue of "gay marriage" is religious...for all of us.

Is this all irrelevant to the question of the legality of "gay marriage"?  By no means!  The Bible is clear that even governments must obey God.  Someone may claim that I am overreaching, that religion needs to stay out of the public arena.  But then aren't you imposing your beliefs about religion on me?  My religion demands that I bring it into the public arena.  Where is the tolerance now?  Or is it okay to discriminate against Christians now?

The problem here is obvious.  When you have two people with opposing faiths, an equal amount of conviction, and no discernible difference in evidence, you cannot simply rule one right and the other wrong without it being oppression.  The Christian beliefs of yours that are being oppressed are those that oppress others, just as murder or theft is illegal because it harms another, even should you happen to believe it's right.  Why this is labeled 'irrational' is because it doesn't consider that another point of view may be correct - it is not objective.

QuoteAm I being a bigot?  I don't think so.  I have relatives who are homosexuals, and I do not despise them or look upon them as somehow "sub-human" or "not good enough".  At the same time, I cannot, in good conscience, say that what they are doing is acceptable in the eyes of God.

Yes, I'd say you are being a bigot.  Consider that they are doing something unacceptable in the eyes of god, making them sinners.  How is that not a statement that their way of life makes them 'sub-human' or 'not good enough'?

Interesting side note on this topic.  The supreme court already has a precedent on this issue.  Once upon a time it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in Virginia.  Well, someone went and did it anyway - those naughty bastards.  The supreme court ruled that you cannot deny someone the right to marry based on an immutable class (something you can't change, like race, gender, or nationality) according to amendment 14 (I believe).

So, the only real question I see is whether or not homosexuality is an immutable class.  Studies point to a biological cause (homosexual males having brain patterns similar to females, and lesbians having inner ear structures similar to men), which would make it an immutable class.  Consider that if homosexuality is an immutable class, then according to strict biblical interpretation these people are damned from birth.  Devil spawn?  That's definitely discrimination.

I have a couple of quick responses, then I have to bail (I'm under a bit of a time crunch.)

Alan,

I don't think that you're being harsh at all, because you're right, that is exactly the question.  Why is my God better than yours?  It's a fair question to ask.

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time (as I mentioned), so I can't lay out a full response right now, but here's the abbreviated version:

My God acts in perfect love and in perfect justice.  I know this because He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for my sins.  In this way, His justice was served (because to merely overlook my sins would be a travesty), but His love was displayed (because He did this for me without my asking for it at all).

No other god can make that claim.  Therefore, my God is better (as you say) than the other gods.

Obviously, this conversation could continue (and I'm willing to do so).  However, we both need to realize that the reality is that this is a conflict of gods:  yours vs. mine.  That is why I appreciated the candor of your post.

Marhault,

I know that "separation of church and state" is routinely hauled out to justify many government policies.  Again, I could take time to haul out the old arguments about how that phrase isn't actually in the Constitution blah blah blah, but you've probably already heard it.  ;-)

Here's a different thought that I think is more profound:

Everything is religious.  It cannot be avoided.  You are incorrect when you say that "[t]his isn't....a religious issue."  By saying that the dictates of religion do not belong in the public square, you are making a religious statement.  In essence, this is de facto atheism, because you are saying that what God has to say is irrelevant to politics.

Now, I happen to think that our nation is a de facto atheist nation, so, in a sense, this is consistent.  I believe it was clehrich in the Radical Politics thread who called for a banning of all religion from politics.  In a way, I'd support this.  At least the hypocrisy would end.  The USA claims to be a nation blessed by God (God Bless America), but at the same time we refuse to obey Him.  I say, pick one!  Either choose to obey the Christian God, or come out and reject Him.  But let's not limp between the two choices any longer.

To lay it out on the table, I think that the issue of "gay marriage" is going to be a watershed in our nation's history.  IMHO, it will eventually happen.  Maybe not now, but, as I said, I think that our nation is de facto atheistic, and, as has been well established, once the religious objections are removed, nothing really remains.  I believe that this will be the wrong choice, because there is a God in heaven who is not mocked.  And, in the end, it doesn't matter what you believe.  What matters is the truth.  And He is the Truth.

I probably won't be able to get back to the forum tonight, but if either of you want to continue this by PM, I'm open to it.

And I appreciate your courtesy, Marhault, in being willing to listen to me.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Quote from: montagthis, is the best, non-bigoted argument against gay marriage I'm aware of:
link (http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107)
the basic point is, that marriage is to some extent a hassle, that it takes time and effort and dedication and that it does indeed function as a social norm which keeps people in line. By redefining marriage as a purely voluntary act of people in love (de-emphasising the commitment aspect) we are – according to this argument – about to loose (a) social cohesion and (b) an institution, which emphasises the role/value of commitment, which places commitment to another person right in the middle of our society, .. and thus naturally colours social reality.

I can agree with those points and I don't think this applies only to gay marriage, but straight marriage as well. This may be why the divorce rate is so high. Marriage is a hassle and if you think it isn't, you might want to save the receipt for that ring.

Seth, I disagree with you in a big, big way. However, I think you're being really, really reasonable about this, & I appreciate that. I've gotten into arguments about gay marriage on other boards, & no one with an oppsing viewpoint has been as...gentle as you. Very cool.

And you know what? That's all I'm going to say. Because nothing I write here will change your position (just as nothing you write will convince me that same-sex marriage is wrong--I'm not a Christian, so appeals to the Bible mean nothing to me). Instead, I'll shake your hand in a gentlemanly fashion & agree to disagree.

Quote from: GreatWolf
My God acts in perfect love and in perfect justice.  I know this because He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for my sins.  In this way, His justice was served (because to merely overlook my sins would be a travesty), but His love was displayed (because He did this for me without my asking for it at all).

No other god can make that claim.  Therefore, my God is better (as you say) than the other gods.

Hi Seth,

Well you answered one half of my question.  What about the other half?  How do you know this is true?

My wife is about to drag me off to hack off my hair.  (Some of it?  All of it?  The audience holds its breath.)  But I was able to get back to this thread for a moment.

Josh,

I'm glad that I'm not coming across as being a jerk.  I'm trying to speak the truth in love, and that can be hard to do on an Internet forum.  ;-)  Glad to know that I'm coming across in the way that I want to.

Alan,

How do I know that this is true?  Same as anything else:  the testimony of witnesses.  Here are a brief sampling:

The Testimony of Creation

All Creation testifies of its Creator.  Moreover, His Law is engraved on the soul.  There is a reason that the Golden Rule is acknowledged throughout mankind; it is because it is a reflection of the moral Law of the Creator.

The Testimony of the Scriptural Record

The writers of the New Testament were either eyewitnesses of the events that are recorded or spoke to the eyewitnesses themselves.  The testimony of eyewitnesses is usually accepted as evidence.

Also, such finds as the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the classic understanding of certain portions of Scripture and disprove certain higher critical theories (e.g. the two authors of Isaiah)

The Testimony of the Extrabiblical Record

There are corroborating witnesses from the New Testament period.  Josephus is one who is usually cited.

The Testimony of the Soul

However, when all is said and done, the reality is that the Spirit of God has opened my eyes to see the truth.  This isn't some pat on the back for me. I didn't do anything, so what's there to be proud of?  One way the Bible speaks of becoming a Christian is being "born again".  Well, what choices did you have in being born?  It was your parents' actions that caused you to be born, not your own.  So, in the same way, God opened my eyes to the truth and caused me to see.

Remember, this isn't about producing evidence that will convince you.  The evidence is there; this is all objectively true.  However, if you do not want to see it, then you will not see it.

Cruciel,

As for being a bigot....  Well, I could note here that, while we were still living in Erie, my homosexual relative (my wife's uncle) and his boyfriend were always welcome at family gatherings and were, as much as possible, made to be welcome and a part of things.  I suppose that I could mention that I am not persuaded by the studies that are being produced to "prove" that homosexuality is biological.  (Science is notorious for being in error about many things, as it is the product of finite, fallible, human minds.)

I would rather focus on two points.

First, to say that homosexuality is a sin is not to place homosexuals below me somehow.  For example, lying is a sin, and I have lied.  All have sinned, not just "them" (whoever "they" are).  As I say, there is no room for superiority here.  Rather, we all need to repent of our sins and throw ourselves on the mercy of the Court.

But if not....

Christians have been called worse names through the ages.  We have been called cannibals, devil worshipers, rebels, and seditious.  We have been whipped, beaten, jailed, stoned, crucified, shot, hung, drowned, and burned alive.

And, after 2,000 years, we are still here.  And those that opposed us have failed.

The much-maligned Paul wrote in the Bible to "be at peace with all men."  So that is what I pursue with all men, including homosexuals.  My conscience is clear before God that I am not a bigot.  And, in the end, that's all that matters.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

An excellent job at witnessing my friend.

Well I see someone stole my money argument.... that'll teach me to be busy eh.

One thing I want to say though is that I think there is a deeper question here that goes beyond the sexuality of those involved.

Spiritual / Religious marriage and state marriage are more intermixed then they have ever been.  By that I mean we have representatives of religions performing a state function, which they have done for a long time, but at this point going to a secular marriage person, Justice of the Peace or going to Vegas, are occasionally considered socially illegitimate.

Where this problem is occuring is that the state is now in a position to say "We are letting you do service X, then you have to let anyone do it." Well I believe this is unfair to force people who are biased because of their beliefs to perform these actions.  Now I know this happens all over society and in many cases is equally wrong.

If the Catholic Church does not want to sanction same sex marriage then they do not have to.  If Lutherans or Buddhists or Celtic Pagans want to sanction same sex marriages, then they can.  If we really want to split Church and State (which few nations have really ever done) then we should need to split secular and spiritual marriages.  Secular arrangements should have few or no restrictions (age limits and animals being the two that come to mind) and certainly there is no reason why people of the same gender couldn't be married by secular institutions. Spiritual arrangements COULD have secular components if they wished it and met certain requierments but perhaps they would not have to.  So two Catholics could get married and still not be considered married by the State. As well as vice versa.

A second issue I have with the whole argument is this: We accept the idea that in a marriage there is likely going to be sex and thus in same gender arrangements people will engage in homosexual activity.  Well what IF two friends, lets say female, want to never be separated. They want to live together, share together, grow old together... and both are straight. Well thats just stupid you say.... but it does happen.  Should the right of two people to gain the benefits of marriage be limited by those who are in love or who are going to have sexual relations?

Finally we also see the idea of poly marriages. (Its not just for Mormons anymore) Why just 2 people? Why not 3?  Again I have no problem with a religion saying we do not like it and that does not make them evil or hateful.  From a state level, other then pissing off economics and of course property laws, there is not reason why 3 people could not be married. Yes I know what the definition of marriage is but these relationships DO exist, are as functional as dual marriage, and should have some consideration.  

I myself am fairly liberal on many social issues, homosexuality being one of them.  Mainly its because I could care less who sleeps with who, when, why, and how.  On the other hand lets not force people who don't want such a thing in their part of society (religion) to do it or accept it.  I think that this is issue goes a lot deeper then gender in marriage and mere economics.

Just my 2 Lunars.


Sean

Personally, I think the government should be completely out of the marriage game.  No marriage licenses, no registrations.  Put it entirely in the hands of the churches.  If your church says you can get married, dandy, if they say you can't, don't come crying to the courts.

The government should, instead, allow any group of people, related, married, or not, to declare that they are taking responsibility for the care of each other, and as a result, should have that group recognized by the government as a family.  The only requirement should be that they live together as a nuclear community, sharing housing and other resources.

I know of TWO families that consist of a pair of sisters who live together, jointly taking care of children of one of the pair.  In the one case, even though the mother and daughter are completely dependent on the sister/aunt, and are dependents and family members in every sense, they cannot get medical insurance through her because they aren't "members of the immediate family".

Recognizing these kinds of relationships would be a STABILIZING influence on our culture, not destabilizing.

Edit: GAH!  You beat me to it.

Quote from: ADGBoss...lets not force people who don't want such a thing in their part of society (religion) to do it or accept it.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.
A chunk of the arguements in the Pro camp deal with "This is what WE want." while a chunk of the arguement in the Con camp (mostly religious fields) is "Well we DON'T!" The seperation of church and state goes both ways: the state can't tell churches what, within reason (First Amendment protection), it can and cannot do.
"Marriage" as an institution has long been recognized as a portion of faiths and beliefs, approved of by governments for more control. What I'm NOT keen on myself is my government being able to walk into my church and tell me what I have to accept as a marriage and what I don't. Sanction civil unions and bestow the benefits, aside from a level of acceptance thats what a lot of the request is about: the ability to care for a partner, make important decisions in their life by default, etc. just don't tell me my faith has to accept it as legit. Call it an issue of semantics.

Per Mormens and poligamy- quite a bit of study on poligamist Mormens seems to indicate were it widely acceptable and available with marriage benefits in taxes, benefits and insurance as-is would place a massive strain on the system. As an aside, a very close friend of mine is Mormen and she's discussed the whole issue before- for one, it apperently isn't a core portion of the belief structure, and two many churches and the central officials dropped its promotion when the courts decided against them, breaking affiliation with churches that do promote it. Asking/telling them they could only have one spouse seems akin to telling American muslims "Your church can't actively seek the death of "infidels".", even though officials of the faith in the East say so.
Other issues exist within the extremist Mormen-style of poligamy anyway, issues that are legally invalid under any circumstances in our (US) nation- forced marriage and underage brides being two intertwined factors. Thats not to say *all* polyigamists of the faith do so, just that it was common and remains a factor in the situation today.
In a nut shell, regular Joe Mormens don't give a twitch either way. Those who advocate the poligamy on the basis of faith and belief are in a minority looked down on by those in their own church.

As another aside, to be Christian and honestly believe and know whats going on, you have to be willing to look yourself in the mirrior and see your own flaws. The biggest step on the road to recovery, so say addicts and abusers, is admitting theres a problem- to even consider yourself Christian you have to admit to yourself you Sin and screw up. When a Christian says "Thats wrong and sinful," bare in mind it takes one to know one.

I'm with the "government should stay out of marriage" crowd. The concept is just too loaded. Government could maybe give out Domestic Partnership licenses to any kind of couple instead. But this kind of fucked up discrimination we have going on now is all a result of religion and government mixing when it never should have.

And it may be driven partly by financial decisions, but also by those who call themselves fundamental Christians, who are really pick-and-choose Christians and lip service Christians.

Jesus says divorce is a sin and remarriage is adultery. Is anyone pushing to make divorce illegal? Hell no, that would make our straight lives inconvenient! But wait... in another account of the very same conversation, Jesus actually makes an exception for fornication. So one of the accounts is wrong, hence one part of the Bible is untrue. What do we do? Pick-and-Choose.

I've tried and tried discussing this with people, but it's really tiring. People think they're on the moral high ground. Let me quote Bill Maher for them:

"There's more to values than reciting things and praying and voting for Bush... being moral actually involves making choices guided by principles like fairness and tolerance."

That's where I'm at.

A couple of points.

First, the insurance question still amounts to discrimination, even if that's not the intent.  Think about it: everyone who has insurance already subsidizes heterosexual marriages.  Is it fair to leave gays out in the cold?  Plus, if you accept for a moment that gays make up 10% of the population, that means there would be about 9 times as many straight marriages as gay; the rational thing would be to support only the gay marriages and let the straights twist in the breeze, since it would be so much cheaper.

Seth: Exactly which verses in the Bible do you rely on for your certainty that homosexuality is a sin?  Because all the citations I've seen people give are surrounded by other laws that you probably don't follow anymore, because Jesus set you free of the burden of Old Testament Law.  I'm wondering what makes homosexuality special.

Also, it should be noted that marriage is a human institution that has undergone many changes historically.  Here's a link to a few:
http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=historical_look

Quote from: Paul Hebble
Seth: Exactly which verses in the Bible do you rely on for your certainty that homosexuality is a sin?  Because all the citations I've seen people
give are surrounded by other laws that you probably don't follow anymore, because Jesus set you free of the burden of Old Testament Law.  I'm
wondering what makes homosexuality special.

Gee, I thought that we killed this topic last year.  ;-)

This is a quick answer, because I'm at work and have some serious troubleshooting to be doing.  Plus, it's almost time to process Diplomacy orders.

If I have time later, I'll write something in more depth.  It won't be tonight, though, because Ralph (Valamir) and I have a game of War of the
Ring to play.  (This time the Free People will win through.  I know it!

Anyways, Paul, here's a New Testament citation for you:

QuoteFor this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to
nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27)  

The issue of continuity/discontinuity of the Old and New Covenants is a difficult one, and therefore I will not attempt to address it now.  Suffice
it to say that the normative principle of marriage throughout Scripture is "a man and woman are joined together".  Some examples include:

Quote
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

From creation, God's ordinance is one-man/one-woman.

Quote
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."  (Matthew 19:3-6)

Jesus appeals to this principle when arguing against divorce, thus demonstrating that this is not an artifact of the Old Covenant.

Quote
And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.  Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. (Malachi 2:13-15)

One of the purposes of marriage is Godly offspring.  Biology demonstrates that this is only possible between a man and a woman.  (There are other
purposes, true, but this is one of them.)

Quote
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.  (Ephesians 5:22-33)  

Paul notes that marriage is a symbol of the relationship of Jesus and His Church.  Thus, the interplay of the male/female relationship in marriage is a picture of how Jesus relates to His special people.  It's important to note at this point that Paul's instructions in this passage (especially to husbands) is totally countercultural.  Often Paul gets a bum rap as one who is enforcing cultural norms, but a brief survey of the treatment of women in the Roman Empire should demonstrate that the command to "love your wives" was a radical departure from the common wisdom of the day.

So, those are a few passages that I might point at, without having to dive into Leviticus.  :-D  I'd write more, but you're probably already wondering how I could possibly think that this is a short post.

Hope that this is helpful.

Thanks Seth...

To me, an excellent article that firmly supports my opinion that government should have nothing at all to do with marriage.

Quote from: GreatWolfFrom creation, God's ordinance is one-man/one-woman.

Except here:

Quote from: Genesis 32:22And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

And here:

Quote from: Genesis 36:2Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

Here:

Quote from: Samuel 1:2And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

Or in Jesus' parabel:

Quote from: Matthew 25:1, 25:10Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. (...) And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage.

And Paul, of course, is not exactly a defender of Women's Rights:

Quote from: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Sorry, but IMNSHO, anyone immoral enough to condone oppression of women cannot be a moral authority.

Xenopulse,

I'm going to be a little snippy here.  But I figure that I'm giving you fair warning, so it's okay.  ;-)

Ready?

<snippy>

Do you really think that I am clueless as to the content of the Holy Book of my religion?  Do you really think that I am now suddenly going to roll over and say, "You're right!  I had no clue that so many of the Biblical characters were polygamists!  Perhaps the entire content of my faith is wrong!  Perhaps Jacob's bigamy really does justify homosexual 'marriage'?"

Please give me some credit for being intelligent enough to be both aware of these issues and having reasonable responses.  Now, are you really interested in hearing them, or are you just looking to put another notch in your belt and feel good about telling off some clueless bigoted Christian?

</snippy>

That's a serious question, by the way.  I'm happy to engage in productive discussion, but, honestly, I'm a pretty busy guy, and I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's, either.  I'm married to a wonderful woman whom I love passionately, and I am the father of four children (plus one on the way) who keep me pretty busy.  So, seriously, are you interested in dialogue, or are you just looking to fight?

Don't know why I'm getting involved, but here goes.

Seth, the problem with your argument is that other people have just as much evidence and faith as you do in other beliefs. I accept that you believe as strongly as you do, but I also accept that others do as well. Where your beliefs and others conflict, how is the third party to choose between them when the evidence is essentially equal?

We're not moving to an Atheist America, we're moving to a secular government. There is a difference. The secular government doesn't say that action A or B is wrong, it only prevents individuals from harming each other. Because without that there is no society, and demand for having a society is what causes governments to exist in the first plce. So, since that's the only common ground we share, that has to be the only condition by which we judge what to create law about. All else should remain at the liberty of the individual.

Now, that means, in fact, that marriage should be dissolved as an institution supported by the state. Instead, as Fred suggests, people can make their own contracts - a contract being an agreement enforced by law in order, again, to sustain us as a society.

Now this is actually rather pie in the sky, I'll admit. I do see a use for government in supporting values that the vast majority seem to share. But in the long, long run, I'm a libertarian.

Now, here's the argument that I'd give to you, Seth, to try to convince you that this is all right and proper. If, in fact, you strip away the government of any association with religion, making it only a body intent on protecting individuals from the harms that others might put forth, wouldn't the truth then be allowed to come out? That is, if you believe in fact that the Truth you claim is true, then given an even playing ground, shouldn't that become apparent, and the truth win out? I think it's precisely because people do fear that government will force some particular way upon them, that they often fear to follow any religion that seems sponsored by it. Only by free choice can the faithful be called, no? You can't force someone to believe, right?

So why do you need the government on your side?

Mike

GreatWolf,

I wrote a long response and deleted it.

I did not attack you, I didn't even make an argument, except for my impression of Paul. I merely quoted the Bible.

I don't assume you're clueless. I just think your statement was not supported by the Bible. And that's best shown with citations. It's called the academic method with regards to primary sources.

Honestly, it'd probably be a waste of time to discuss this between the two of us. You have your arguments, based on the fundamental idea that the Bible is true and somehow all the contradictions can be solved. My fundamental point is that there are way too many contradictions (and different translations) to take that book literally, and that overall, I don't have the burden of proof to show that the Bible is wrong. You have the burden of proof to show that it's right, otherwise, all religions would be true unless proven wrong, which is obviously contradictory. The only reasoning I get from fundamentalist Christians is that it's God's word, which is not only tautological, but also refuted by the contradictions.

So, we can let it rest, or throw arguments back and forth, either way.

And I have a wife and three kids to take care of as well. Our marriage is based on love and equality, not tradition and oppression.

Mike,

Thanks for your post.  Here's a brief answer, in bullet points, largely because I really do have stuff that I need to do.

--"Secular" is still a religious outlook.  You say, "The secular government doesn't say that action A or B is wrong, it only prevents individuals from harming each other."  I agree in a sense.  I believe that God established government to restrain evil and reward good.  (As a result, I disagree when you say, "Because without that there is no society, and demand for having a society is what causes governments to exist in the first place. ") I believe that God establishes if action A or B is wrong, and that the government is only to enforce that in the public realm.  However, a secular government does not look to God to determine what is right and wrong; therefore, it has a religious outlook.  Neutrality is impossible.

--I agree that the government does not define what marriage is.  However, in order for the government to do its work (restraining evil and rewarding good), it does need to have a definition of marriage.  Otherwise, there are a host of legitimate governmental functions that will not be able to be performed.

--I agree that the Truth is the Truth, regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with it.  I don't need the government to say that it is the Truth to make it true.  And, at the risk of sounding like a religious nut (which, I guess I am), I also believe that everyone will discover the Truth at some point, although for some it will be too late.  (Philippians 2:9-11)

Oh yes, I'll end by responding to this

Quote
Seth, the problem with your argument is that other people have just as much evidence and faith as you do in other beliefs. I accept that you believe as strongly as you do, but I also accept that others do as well.

with a quote

Quote
"Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"

"My beliefs do not require that they do."
--Lock and Morpheus, Matrix Reloaded

Quote from: xenopulse
So, we can let it rest, or throw arguments back and forth, either way.

Let's just let it rest.  Probably better that way.

Besides, as someone noted to me in a PM, I still need to finish Alyria.  (I'm now officially requesting periodic nags to shame me into finishing.)

Quote
And I have a wife and three kids to take care of as well. Our marriage is based on love and equality, not tradition and oppression.

Cool!  Enjoy them.  It is a great thing to be married, isn't it?

QuoteIt is a great thing to be married, isn't it?

It's wonderful. Any two people who love each other should be allowed to experience it :)

Seth,

Consider this a nag.  Go finish Alyria.

Quote from: daMoose_NeoThe seperation of church and state goes both ways: the state can't tell churches what, within reason (First Amendment protection), it can and cannot do.

Speaking as a clergyman, I don't think there'll be any problem with finding religions willing to marry same-sex couples. I would do it, for instance.

And speaking as a recently married guy, it's the state that marries couples anyway. Clergy just perform a brief decorative ceremony.

People in the U.S. are feeling insecure and freaked out, and gay marriage gives them a handy way to smack back at the threatening world around them.  You can't legislate away Osama Bin Laden or rap music or globalization, but you can legislate that a marriage is a man and a woman, by God!  

In other words, the gay rights movement went for Martin Luther King when it should have stuck to W.E.B. DuBois.  They overreached, and now there's a backlash.

James, I'd be curious what you think about my idea of divorcing (heh.  divorcing) the secular legal contract from the marriage sacrament.

Quote from: xenopulse

QuoteIt is a great thing to be married, isn't it?

It's wonderful. Any two people who love each other should be allowed to experience it :)

I agree. In fact, the only problem I have with being married is this: the fact that any two people who love each other and are committed to each other cannot get married devalues my marriage. If everybody and anybody can't sit with me in the front of the bus and drink from the same water fountain as I do, my life is lessened.

Quote from: joshua neffI agree. In fact, the only problem I have with being married is this: the fact that any two people who love each other and are committed to each other cannot get married devalues my marriage. If everybody and anybody can't sit with me in the front of the bus and drink from the same water fountain as I do, my life is lessened.

I'm with you there. Many of the arguments that are put forward (the rational ones, not the ones that just refer to bits of the Bible), founder on the fact that many heterosexual marriages have the same foundation as gay ones. My wife and I certainly didn't get married to have children, we married so that society recognises the commitment that we have made to each other and so that our friends and family can celebrate this commitment. I'm happy for anyone to have that (anyone who can make such a commitment that is).

Quote from: VaxalonJames, I'd be curious what you think about my idea of divorcing (heh.  divorcing) the secular legal contract from the marriage sacrament.

I'm sure it's just all a terrible, terrible coincidence that nobody started to care about that idea before the idea of marrying same-sex couples came up.

In addition to which, this happens already. People are already married without a religious ceremony. Religions already refuse to marry people who can be legally married. Most religions won't marry a couple without the legal form, that's really the big thing. But if you want religion to get out of the marriage business, that's cool. It's essentially a civil ritual, independent of the religious content.

People also get married in a religious ceremony that isn't recognized by the government.

What it boils down to, to me, is that the reasons the government fails to accord same-sex couples the same rights as hetero couples is a religious one... which violates the establishment clause of the constitution.

Gay marriage is legal here in the Netherlands, and as far as I'm aware not even the major conservative party has any wish to abolish it. I'm also unaware of a break-down of society that has resulted from gay-marriage's legality, so it may be safe to postulate that no such thing has happened.

Quote from: VaxalonPeople also get married in a religious ceremony that isn't recognized by the government.

What it boils down to, to me, is that the reasons the government fails to accord same-sex couples the same rights as hetero couples is a religious one... which violates the establishment clause of the constitution.

No one gets married in a religious ceremony not recognized by the government -- or at least not "married" in the legal sense. Not "married" where you could, for instance, file a joint tax return. And that's the kind of married we're talking about here. If it were just a question of religious ceremonies, no one would care.

The reason that the government won't permit gay marriage is the exact same reason they won't remove all governmental involvement in marriage:

a) they don't want to, because they hate gays too. And
b) they couldn't even if they did, because it would be the political equivalent of putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger.

Quote from: James Holloway
b) they couldn't even if they did, because it would be the political equivalent of putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger.

Or would it? You see, neither of the mainstream US political parties have tried anything that can possibly be seen as socially liberal for a long, long time, because they have The Fear that they'll lose support. Because that's what their present power base, the corporate interests, the neo-cons tell them, that they're the only ones who matter, the only ones who can keep them in power.

And because both sides pander to the same interests, any other interests become disenfranchised and disenchanted with the political process (heaven* knows I am).

I'm beginning to think a radical democrat could garner a hell of a lot of support, but unless Oprah runs for Pres, we ain't gonna see it.

Because, you know, it could lead to the US becoming the sink-hole of depravity that is the Netherlands, with it's liberal laws, vibrant economy...

*non-denom

Quote from: GreatWolf"Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"

"My beliefs do not require that they do."
--Lock and Morpheus, Matrix Reloaded

This is the same logic by which Islamic fundamentalists attack the US. There will be no peace until civil society understands that we cannot use force of any sort, including government, to impress our ideals upon one another.

God created game theory too.

Mike

Mike,

You damn hippie.


-Chris

Quote from: James HollowayIn addition to which, this happens already. People are already married without a religious ceremony. [...] It's essentially a civil ritual, independent of the religious content.

Yup, I was married by the mayor of the town where I lived at the time. Religion had nothing to do with it.

Strangely enough, I was having a conversation with my sister on this very topic not too long ago. She said something that really stuck with me: "You know, gay marriage is going to be the civil rights issue for our generation. Just like we're shocked that interracial couples couldn't get married in our parent's generation, our kids will have the same reaction because a same-sex couple couldn't get married in ours."

Personally, I'm on board with that. If two men or two women want to get married, I'm cool with it. It doesn't take anything away from me. Hell, if two men and two women all want to get married to each other, I'm fine with that as well. I've yet to hear a logical argument against gay marriage.

I think we, as a nation, need to decide whether we are going to be a secular society, or a religious one, and if we're going to be religious, which religion is going to be in charge.

Quote from: VaxalonI think we, as a nation, need to decide whether we are going to be a secular society, or a religious one, and if we're going to be religious, which religion is going to be in charge.

Good luck with that.

We'll need it.

Gay marriage should be illegal because that would endorse committed, monogamous relationships between homosexuals. I want my homosexuals flamingly promiscuous, dammit!

Um, seriously though... I'm pretty much with Vaxalon on this one. Government should get out of the marriage business, create some sort of legal union with the current boons of marriage, and let religions make the call on "marriage."

Really, I want heterosexual domestic partner benefits.

Quote from: C. EdwardsYou damn hippie.

No, statistician and game theorist. ;-)

Mike

Quote from: GreatWolf
My God acts in perfect love and in perfect justice.

Hi there,

If God acts in perfect love and justice, can you please explain why he used such barbaric rules in the Old Testament?

I mean, if God knows everything, that means he knows 21st Century morality, too, right? That means he knows we don't stone children to death for being disobedient (as suggested in Leviticus), and we don't forbid short-sighted people or folks with moles on their faces from becoming priests and rabbis (as suggested in the same book). We don't punish people for eating pork or stone them to death for working on the Sabbath.

We don't endorse slavery (as the Bible does), we don't forbid women from entering the temple (as the Bible does), we don't call people who eat shellfish or rabbit or game birds "abominations" (as the Bible does). We don't do any of that.

But if we use the Bible as a source of argument against homosexuality, shouldn't we also use it as a source of argument for all these things?

After all, God knows everything, including 21st century morality. Didn't he understand 21st century morality in 1200 BC?

In other words, if we know slavery is wrong in the 21st century, if we know eating shellfish is okay and short-sighted people can be priests, and working on the Sabbath isn't a death penalty offense... if we know all of this now... why didn't God know it in 1200 BC?

And if we finally come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of genetics -- that God made them that way -- then how can we blame people for how God made them?

Forget the next generation being shocked.

We Canucks are already quietly, politely horrified to be looking south at such a mess.  You poor sods, eh?

I think it would be wrong for people who aren't gay or bisexual, or who don't want to get married, to enter into a gay marriage. I doubt in that case doing so would make them particularly happy. There's always the possibility that individuals are unclear on their actual needs and desires, but on the whole I think the above is a pretty good guideline.

Quote from: GreatWolf--"Secular" is still a religious outlook.

I know you won't agree with me when I say this, Seth, but that is not true. To require a religious outlook requires a religious faith. Secularity does not have a religious faith. The problem with your argument is that the absence of religious faith is not religion, therefore a secular government does not hold a religious outlook despite it not holding a religious outlook.

The argument you present, in fact, is precisely why atheists become so incensed when they are accused of holding a religious outlook, or having atheism referred to as a "faith", when it is quite the opposite. It is also why scientists (and biology majors the world over) become rather annoyed when science is referred to as "belief".

Science is not belief in the same way secular government is not religious. (And I'm certainly hoping the logic of the first portion of that statement is obvious enough that it doesn't need to be explained or defended.)

I know the above isn't popular on the bandwagon that proclaims "atheism and secularism is a religion, etc." line, but claiming the absence of religious outlook is just bad logic: it's like claiming that the absence of fire is a fire, too. Or that darkness is just light you can't see in.

QuoteAnd, at the risk of sounding like a religious nut (which, I guess I am), I also believe that everyone will discover the Truth at some point, although for some it will be too late.

Indeed, and, just to be snarky in a friendly sort of way because I'm quite possibly considered a religious nut as well in various circles, I want you to know that I am sorry you will not discover the Truth until it is too late because of your current insistence about the Truth. We here who know the Truth recognize your failing in this regard and are sorry for the consequences you have chosen for yourself by not choosing the Truth even though you believe you have.

For example, the fact that you fail to accept the Holy See as the voice of the authority of God means you have not accepted the Truth. Only the Pope and the Vatican, as the true descendants of the church founded by Christ himself, can interpret the Word of God. We hope that you will one day come to accept the authority God has invested in the Holy Father, and hear his words as the Word of God, for that is what it is.

Of course, I'm not Catholic, but you see the point.
And just to clarify, I don't particularly care what you, as a person, choose to believe in for yourself regarding the Truth. I'm all for agreeing to disagree on such issues, and being neighborly, because most people are very nice people despite their differences in beliefs about that Truth concept. That said...

Quote"Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"
"My beliefs do not require that they do."

Right back at ya!

My stating of which directly after your stating of the same is, of course, the intended point of the original statement to which you responded. In other words, this question: does your belief that your beliefs are the Truth mean that you can step all over me because you believe you are Right and I am Wrong? Does that mean, conversely, that I can step all over you because (in fact) I am Right and you are Wrong?

(Of course, when I say "in fact", I am doing it to make a point, not because I'm actually that assinine to believe it. Even though it's true. Oh wait, I just made my point again.)

So, that is where I draw the line about respecting other people's beliefs: when they start hurting my family or I for no reason other than a disagreement about our respective beliefs and their attempt to enforce their own upon me and mine through government authority and other strong-arm positioning. Such tactics are, bluntly, unAmerican, as would be any form of government based upon a specific Truth.

Honestly, Seth, given what has happened to me and my family because of my religious beliefs, because of what happened to me because other people believe they are the ones who have God and Truth on their side, because I've seen what happens when you have people who claim to have the Truth in power over those who do not share their view, even flirtation with the concept of government sanction or concession towards any set of religious beliefs scares the hell out of me.

Given that, do you understand the objection -- not an objection to what you believe the Truth to be or your personal desire to live according to that Truth -- but the objection to its utilization as a basis for secular law, law over others who do not share your belief and thus personal desires?

Quote from: John Wick

Quote from: GreatWolf
My God acts in perfect love and in perfect justice.

I mean, if God knows everything, that means he knows 21st Century morality, too, right? That means he knows we don't stone children to death for being disobedient (as suggested in Leviticus), and we don't forbid short-sighted people or folks with moles on their faces from becoming priests and rabbis (as suggested in the same book). We don't punish people for eating pork or stone them to death for working on the Sabbath.

The spiritual nature of Christianity is basically historical -- it assumes that the relationship between God and Man has changed significantly, and bases its faith on an understanding of when and how that change happened. This is why the Old Testament is, er, called the "Old" Testament. The theory of the thing is that the relationship between humanity and God changes, with the sacrifice of Christ, from one based on ritual to one based on grace (and, depending on your denomination, morality and/or ritual, but not the elaborate ritual codes of Judaism).

Now, this raises two problems. The first is how to decide exactly which bits of the Old Testament are ritual prohibitions and which are moral prohibitions -- you will yourself have noticed that many Christians eat pork, shave, etc. These prohibitions, it was felt, were not really what the new dispensation is all about. But there are disputed areas, and the debate over them is, obviously, ongoing. Homosexuality is not really one of them. It doesn't turn up much in the New Testament, but when it does it is disapproved of.

The second problem, and the point you raise here, is attempting to reconcile the Christian idea of a changing, developing relationship between God and humanity -- essentially, the story of the Bible -- with the idea that God, being omniscient, must have known exactly what was going on all along. Reconciling divine omniscience and free will is the fundamental theological challenge of Christianity,and there's two thousand years of work on it. For my money, none of the responses are really satisfactory, but obviously people believe differently.

Of course, the Catholic church deals with the issue differently again. They don't have to resort to the Bible to defend all their positions, and are perfectly free to lay down blanket bans on things without being inconsistent.