US non-religious heteros and same-sex marriage.

[Aldebaran]

There were already a few threads on same-sex marriage in the US.
I had my questions about the (ab)use of the word “marriage” in this context answered. As I understand, it comes down to confusion about the real meaning of the word “marriage” in a civil context, because religious clergy has also the mandate to act as civil servant, signing and legalizing the civil marriage at the same ceremony as the religious one.
For some reasons Christians don’t seem to be able to make any distinction between “religious” marriage and civil marriage without any religious ceremony involved.

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.
What is the interest of this group in having the homosexual community refused to have their unions celebrated and sealed with the certificate (and obviously the benefits) of marriage?

Salaam. A

[Lobsang]

Biggotry.

IAA non religious Heterosexual male and I think it is just basic biggotry. I can't see any realistic reason why Homosexual people should not be able to marry.

[Voyager]

You might try rewriting your last paragraph. It's a bit confusing.

If you are implying that non-religious heterosexuals are against SSM, please provide a cite. I'm not aware that this is the case, and I'm not aware of atheist heterosexuals who have spoken out against it. This is not to say that it is our number one priority, but I suspect that this community votes for these kinds of rights by large pluralities (but I haven't seen any numbers.)

I also don't think it is fair to call this a Christian - non-Christian issue. It is more a fundamentalist/Bible believer type of any religion, vs. the more liberals of any religion.

It is also not an issue of religious vs. civil marriage. Those against SSM would not be satisfied if it were made purely civil, those for it don't want to force any religious organization to conduct ceremonies they don't approve of. I think it is cast as a matter of the definition of marriage, and whatever horrible consequences that are supposed to follow allowing SSM. As for what these are, we've had many threads, and I haven't seen a convincing evil consequence yet.

[Grey]

Some Christians have a hard time disassociating traditional practices historically tied to their religion from current civil legislation. Tradition implies a level of comfort that many are reluctant to abandon. Bigotry would imply an active will to prevent gays from marrying. From my perspective it seems many are motivated more from a reluctance to change. Inertia rather than hate.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.
What is the interest of this group in having the homosexual community refused to have their unions celebrated and sealed with the certificate (and obviously the benefits) of marriage?

Hmm...I'm confused (or maybe you are, or both of us). First, remember that the non-religious in the US are a small minority; what you're interpreting as silence may really be the atheists' getting outshouted by the religious.

Second, this "group" isn't really a group at all: it comprises everyone from Communists through hardcore freemarketers, as well as some New Agers and all kinds of assorted fun. There area lot of different opinions there.

Third, what I have heard from atheists is much more pro-SSM than what i've heard from the religious community, on average.

What's given you the impression than the non-religious Americans are staying silent on this issue?

Daniel

[MrFantsyPants]

I am a non-christian hetero, and I strongly believe in the rights of gays to marry, and have taken a number of actions to support this.

What's in it for me? It's the right thing to do. Want something less altruistic? What if my daughter is gay (1 in 10)? If I start fighting for her rights now, then she should be set in twenty years (hopefully a lot sooner, here in the Fabulous White North).

[Loopydude]

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.


We're a tiny minority. Plus, see how much air time you get when your message is "Religious faith and/or tradition is an idiotic justification for denying equal rights and privileges to homosexuals."

[Aldebaran]

Hmm...I'm confused (or maybe you are, or both of us). First, remember that the non-religious in the US are a small minority; what you're interpreting as silence may really be the atheists' getting outshouted by the religious.

TI am wondering why the non-religious don't seem to feel that the discussion has as implication that their marriage is als looked at also not "moral".
If you see "marriage" as something religious because of your religion, then in my idea the "non-religious marriage" of heteros must be seen by the religious as something "abnormal" as well, since not involving a religious ceremony.

There area lot of different opinions there.

Yes, but all distinct from the background from which the "religious" look at the issue and defend their objections.

What's given you the impression than the non-religious Americans are staying silent on this issue?

An overall impression that this issue is very much talked about from the religious side but not getting much interest/attention from the non religious side. They seem to let the religious promote their views but don't get involved in the discussion themselves.
I was wondering if someone who is not religious has an objection to same sex marriage, on what ground that might be.


Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

We're a tiny minority. Plus, see how much air time you get when your message is "Religious faith and/or tradition is an idiotic justification for denying equal rights and privileges to homosexuals."

Well, since I always get attacked whenever I come up with my view that the USA is a Christian nation when you look at it from the outside.... I suppose you must be considered as being completely wrong :)

Salaam. A

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

TI am wondering why the non-religious don't seem to feel that the discussion has as implication that their marriage is als looked at also not "moral".
If you see "marriage" as something religious because of your religion, then in my idea the "non-religious marriage" of heteros must be seen by the religious as something "abnormal" as well, since not involving a religious ceremony.

Although some religious folks surely believe that, most of the ones I've talked to don't. Even the ones who oppose SSM don't think that my nonreligious marriage is invalid.

Illogical? Perhaps. But that's their belief, and I'm not going to put words in their mouths.

An overall impression that this issue is very much talked about from the religious side but not getting much interest/attention from the non religious side. They seem to let the religious promote their views but don't get involved in the discussion themselves.

Again, I've got no idea where you're getting this impression. What nonreligious people have you specifically heard talking about this issue saying they don't care much about it? For that matter, which nonreligious people are you aware of who are discussing any civil rights issue in the US but are not discussing SSM?

The first nonsectarian civil rights group that comes to mind for most Americans is the ACLU. From their home page www.aclu.org, it's a single click away to their page on Gay/Lesbian rights (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm). They're vocal on it.

Or you can check out the leading organization that promotes separation of church and state: the mysteriously named Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Here's their faq on the proposed marriage amendment (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_marriage_faq). Although they don't come out specifically in favor of SSM, they certainly excoriate the amendment.

I think what you're really perceiving is that there are very few atheist voices that get air time in the US, especially on issues like marriage; those that do usually don't identify themselves as atheist, because there's a huge amount of prejudice against atheists in the US.

Daniel

[John Mace]

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.
What is the interest of this group in having the homosexual community refused to have their unions celebrated and sealed with the certificate (and obviously the benefits) of marriage?

Yeah, because we all know that every Moslem country in the world has recognized SSM for generations, right? :rolleyes:

In fact, when the SF SSM broohaha was going on last spring, groups of Muslims were among the most vocal protesters (against SSM, that is).

I think most people in the three monotheistic religions (Judiasm, Christianity, Islam) who consider themselves deeply religious in a traditional sense would be against SSM. This is NOT a Christian issue.

[Loopydude]

Well, since I always get attacked whenever I come up with my view that the USA is a Christian nation when you look at it from the outside....

I think it's a Christian nation when you look at it from the inside, but if I were an agnostic in Saudi Arabia, I doubt very much I would be any happier than I am here.

Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians vote, as is their right, and it would appear theirs' were the decisive ballots this time around. They were likely highly motivated by wedge issues like gay marriage, but there were other issues. I don't much like it all, but I have to accept it or move away, and, at least for the present, we all have the right to peacefully agree.

I'm sorry to sound indelicate, but from the outside looking into some Islamic nations, (Sauidi and Iran spring to mind) I'd probably fear for my life, or at the very least for what liberties I would normally enjoy, if I vocally expressed the views I generally have. You may have some valid points behind whatever it is you're insinuating, but I think it's safe to say I'd rather be where I am than where you are.

[Aldebaran]

[QUOTE]You may have some valid points behind whatever it is you're insinuating

What exactly am I insinuating?

Look, I have more then enough of this already.
No post I can make or I get attacked one way or an other like this. My religion, my region (lucky for me not my country since you have no clue about that) is brough up etc..
Remarks that have nothing to do with my OP, with my posts, whatever pop up out of the blue and disturb whatever conversation that is going on.

May I ask the moderator to close this thread because it shall lead nowhere then to the next cheap and easy attack. (Next thing I shall see somewhere is a remark that "I don't ask questions").

Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

Left hand Of darkness: thank you for intersting links.
Other members who tried to go into my OP instead of attacking the poster: Thank you equally for the contributions.

Salaam. A

[John Mace]

Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians vote, as is their right, and it would appear theirs' were the decisive ballots this time around. They were likely highly motivated by wedge issues like gay marriage, but there were other issues.

The concept of one block being "the decisive vote" is a fallacy. It's like saying the last touchdown in a close game was the decisive touchdown. Any touchdown is as important as any other. You just happened to notice the very last one.

Unless you have data that shows that Evangelical Christians turned out in larger numbers this time than last time, AND that this is larger than the increased turnout overall, then your statement is incorrect. Is there such data? I'm not aware of any.

This is like the "moral values was the deciding factor" fallacy floating around. That was an artifact of one specific exit poll, and a poorly crafted poll at that. You could easily have made "the deciding factor" any number of issues by loading the questions differently.

[Polycarp]

There were already a few threads on same-sex marriage in the US.

Salaam, O Alpha Tauri! I will do my best to respond, but with a few gripes thrown in, which I hope you will take in the spirit of fighting ignorance rather than as hostility. :)

I had my questions about the (ab)use of the word “marriage” in this context answered.

What is the significance of "(ab)use" here? Are you implying something about marriage or American attitudes toward it? From a fellow American or European, I'd be quick to jump to conclusions about the usage -- but I suspect your intent is not hostile.

As I understand, it comes down to confusion about the real meaning of the word “marriage” in a civil context, because religious clergy has also the mandate to act as civil servant, signing and legalizing the civil marriage at the same ceremony as the religious one.

Essentially you have a point. Because American marriages are instituted in a single act, which for a large part of Americans is a "church wedding" that also serves to create the civil institution of their marriage, there is a difficulty in distinguishing between the civil state and the religious concept. This is amply shown in the erroneous inference made by many conservative Christians who "don't believe in gay marriage" that if gay marriages are permitted, a church would be obliged to hold gay weddings because they are legal. A church may choose whom it will conduct weddings for today, and that will not change. But because the civil unification of the couple is accomplished in the same ceremony as the religious celebration, there is a tendency to merge the two institutions mentally and emotionally.

For some reasons Christians don’t seem to be able to make any distinction between “religious” marriage and civil marriage without any religious ceremony involved.

And clearly, as one of those Islamic terrorists, you can see the problem here! (Obviously, I don't believe you by virtue of being Muslim are ipso facto a terrorist -- and I'd like the same respect by virtue of being a Christian who can make that distinction, as do I believe the majority of Christian Americans, albeit they are outvoiced by a minority who don't make the distinction.

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.
What is the interest of this group in having the homosexual community refused to have their unions celebrated and sealed with the certificate (and obviously the benefits) of marriage?

I think the answer is quite simple -- those who do not have emotional ties to a gay person are not having their own ox gored by the problem, and may be of insufficient imagination to put themselves in the shoes of the gay person, see the gay person as a Queer-As-Folk stereotype, or otherwise not be able to walk in his/her moccasins. The plurality of Americans who are either non-religious or not actively practicing a religion to which they "officially" belong fall into this category, and only those emotionally close to gay people -- family, close friends, etc. -- and those moved by a zeal for social justice, are out there on the pro-gay-marriage campaign. The disinformation circulated by the more unscrupulous part of the anti-gay-marriage activists helps form their opinions, too -- did you know that gobear and JayJay are actively working to destroy American morals? (Neither did I -- but I'm so informed by the likes of the Irreverend Messrs. Wildmon and Dobson.)

[jayjay]

did you know that gobear and JayJay are actively working to destroy American morals? (Neither did I -- but I'm so informed by the likes of the Irreverend Messrs. Wildmon and Dobson.)

It is kind of funny. I have so much more purpose and focus in fundamentalist fantasies than I do in real life... :D

[Loopydude]

I don't think one has to cite that exit poll. I know this is the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html), and all, but I do think they write the odd good article, with the occasional fact or two. So, if we can accept the cite is not hopelessly partisan (and you'll note the sidebar, mentioning the exit-poll flaws you cite), it's extremely difficult to ignore the fact that in the key states of Ohio and Florida, Bush improved his percentage among churchgoers , and that in counties known to have high populations of conservative Christians, voter turnout was greater than in the 2000 election (the article mentions Warran Co., OH, where the voter turnout increased by 18,000 over 2000). While the one exit poll you mention was flawed, there's enough information in this one article alone to suspect that the Republicans did a better job mobilizing new voters than Democrats, these new voters proved decisive in this election, and they themselves identified moral issues as what motivated the grass-roots efforts to increase the number of red ballots. I, frankly, was unaware this idea is in much dispute. Barely anyone budged in party allegiances from the last election, and that statistic should go undisputed, since it's been cited all over the place. So the difference was made by new voters. I do not think it's the same as focusing on only one touchdown in the game. It's like looking at two different tie games, where one was decided by a coin toss, and the other in overtime.

[Loopydude]

Got nudged down a couple...was responding to JM.

[Loopydude]

What exactly am I insinuating?

Look, I have more then enough of this already.
No post I can make or I get attacked one way or an other like this. My religion, my region (lucky for me not my country since you have no clue about that) is brough up etc..
Remarks that have nothing to do with my OP, with my posts, whatever pop up out of the blue and disturb whatever conversation that is going on.

May I ask the moderator to close this thread because it shall lead nowhere then to the next cheap and easy attack. (Next thing I shall see somewhere is a remark that "I don't ask questions").

Salaam. A

Oh, you may take some solace in the fact I regard all relgions as equally malignant, so there's no intent to pick on you in particular. But your typical comparative politics, and numerous statements regarding concern over your own safety in a Bush world have always led me to think you're somewhere in the Middle East, residing in (if America is a "Christian country") a Muslim country. If that's not the case, I wonder where the hell you are, then. And you're not insinuating anything? Oh, well then, with a heaping helping of humble pie, I take it all back.

[Ottenok]

I think there is a very soft line beween "non-Christian" and "Christian" in America. Many (if not most) Christian Americans don't reguarly practice religion - and they may or may not bring it up when convenient.

I think that line has gotten a little sharper recently, though. In the Clinton admin, I would have said that it is pretty thin, but now that we have Bush and the various Christian elements he initializes, plus "rivals" in Muslims, some people are holding their bibles a little closer to their chests.

[rjung]

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.
We're not uninterested or silent, we're just drowned out by all the religious nutjobs yelling for more bigotry.

[John Mace]

I don't think one has to cite that exit poll. I know this is the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html), and all, but I do think they write the odd good article, with the occasional fact or two. So, if we can accept the cite is not hopelessly partisan (and you'll note the sidebar, mentioning the exit-poll flaws you cite), it's extremely difficult to ignore the fact that in the key states of Ohio and Florida, Bush improved his percentage among churchgoers , and that in counties known to have high populations of conservative Christians, voter turnout was greater than in the 2000 election (the article mentions Warran Co., OH, where the voter turnout increased by 18,000 over 2000). While the one exit poll you mention was flawed, there's enough information in this one article alone to suspect that the Republicans did a better job mobilizing new voters than Democrats, these new voters proved decisive in this election, and they themselves identified moral issues as what motivated the grass-roots efforts to increase the number of red ballots. I, frankly, was unaware this idea is in much dispute. Barely anyone budged in party allegiances from the last election, and that statistic should go undisputed, since it's been cited all over the place. So the difference was made by new voters. I do not think it's the same as focusing on only one touchdown in the game. It's like looking at two different tie games, where one was decided by a coin toss, and the other in overtime.

From your cite:

Whether evangelical turnout rose nationally this year, and by how much, is unclear.

You stated that "fundamentalists and Evangelicals" were what tipped the balance. Theres a world of difference between "conservative Christians" and Evangelicals/fundamentalists. I wouldn't doubt that "conservative Christians" made a big difference in the election, but that is such an amorphouse term as to be pretty meaningless. Most people in this country are Chrsitian, so what it really means, essentially, is that CONSERVATIVES are what tipped the balance.

No?

[Loopydude]

If Evangelicals and fundamentalists aren't conservative Christians, what are they? If you want to ignore the Evangelical, etc. part, fine, but the idea that the value wedge issues motivated these conservative Christians to vote in greater numbers than they did in the last election is, as far as I can tell, amply supported by the available evidence. Conservative Christians appear to have made up a large number of new voters in the key states. Their religious leaders (many of them self-identified Evangelicals) have gone on record as having researched the legality of encouraging their flock to vote according to values, and when satisfied by what they found, did just that. The demographic trends would seem to indicate this grass-roots campaign in religious communities worked as intended. These very pastors were regarded by Rove himself as essential to ensuring a Bush victory. What's so implausible about what I've asserted? It seems some people want to suggest that because one exit poll was flawed, the entire notion that value-motivated Christians weren't critical to Bush's victory is now rubbish. I don't think that's a sound conclusion.

[Polycarp]

From your cite:



You stated that "fundamentalists and Evangelicals" were what tipped the balance. Theres a world of difference between "conservative Christians" and Evangelicals/fundamentalists. I wouldn't doubt that "conservative Christians" made a big difference in the election, but that is such an amorphouse term as to be pretty meaningless. Most people in this country are Chrsitian, so what it really means, essentially, is that CONSERVATIVES are what tipped the balance.

No?

John, I agree that terminology can be a bit inexact, but there is a standard usage for "conservative Christian" to mean someone to whom doctrinal orthodoxy and conformity to a particular moral system are important issues, who regards him/herself as "true" Christian in a way that those whom they regard as "self-styled liberal Christians" are not. They generally incorporate those who describe themselves as "evangelicals" (in a mission/conversion sense rather than the meaning Lutherans give to the term) or "fundamentalists."

Given that, I'd ask what definitions you are prepared to use to describe those who support, e.g., the SBC leadership's agenda, "Focus on the Family," the Family Values Lobby, Traditional Values Coalition, and related groups? I'm not averse to working with terms that seem to my cohorts in a discussion to more clearly reflect the realities of a situation -- but I'm not prepared to buy into a generalized cavil as to a commonly used generalization that suggests no substitute and clearer demarcations.

[John Mace]

Loopy: I'll be back later to discuss this more, but in the meantime, read this article (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/10366010.htm) about the "moral values" poll. I was, btw, primarily concerned with your use of "Fundamentalists and Evangelics" the first post I replied to, so if you ignore that part, then there's nothing left...

From the article:

The evidence that moral values determined the election rests on a single dodgy exit-poll question. And it's not at all clear that more voters are preoccupied with moral values now than were fretting about ``family values'' on Election Day 1996, when exit pollsters included that phrase in a question about ``priorities for the new administration.''

<snip>

Yes, ``moral values'' were a factor in this election. There are voters passionately concerned with gay marriage and abortion, and an overwhelming number of them supported Bush. It's also clear that anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives energized these voters, as did Republican efforts to get out that vote.

But the size and impact of that cohort has been exaggerated.

[Loopydude]

I guess I don't know what to think about that. All the article does is refute the validity of that one exit poll, which we both, and my cite, agree was flawed. It goes on to describe what the entire electorate voted on, and makes no mention of the what I have understood to be the fact that, whatever the reason for voting, essentially the same people who voted for Bush in the last election did so this time around; and likewise for Kerry. So it appears that, without additional members of the electorate weighing in, Bush and Kerry would have been in another dead heat. Many more people turned out to vote than in the last election, both Democrat and Republican. The Republicans got more of those new voters. Who are these new voters? Given the demographics from the key states, it looks as if they're conservative Christians. What was motivating them? They are saying themselves that it was "values", like opposition to gay marriage. If theses folks really didn't matter that much, not only am I mistaken, they are too. And if you'll note from the first post where I made the assertion we've been debating, I never claimed I knew for 100% certain. I'm not sure that anyone does. But I don't think my suspicions are so fallacious as you seem to suggest. They're based on numbers and testimonials from the very regions that made the difference in the election. I am full agreement about the exit poll. It was a stinker, and essentially useless. I don't doubt that more people voted over TWAT or the economy than over values. It's just those folks, apparently, were in the bag from the beginning. And, quite possibly, they weren't enough. Sure, it's the whole haystack that crushed the camel, but aren't we supposed to pay attention to that last straw?

[gum]

[May I ask a stupid question? How many Americans, in percentage, are Christians? And how many atheïsts? - I'm asking because when same-sex marriages were allowed years ago here, the labor party [non Christian] was the biggest party. They were the ones that changed the law. To the full satisfaction of 95% of the Dutch. 85% of the Dutch see no problem in gay couples adopting children either.
Maybe it's because there are more atheïsts around here and the Christians are very liberal? ]

[Evil Captor]

An overall impression that this issue is very much talked about from the religious side but not getting much interest/attention from the non religious side. They seem to let the religious promote their views but don't get involved in the discussion themselves. I was wondering if someone who is not religious has an objection to same sex marriage, on what ground that might be.

One possible explanation -- it's worked for me for many years -- is that the non-religious find many concerns of the religious to be boring and stupid. Explaining to the dullards that there is no Great Sky Fairy gets tired after awhile. I stay out of religious debates on the Dope for the most part because the fundamental assumptions their debates are based on are so obviously bullshit that it makes the whole debate absurd. It's about on par with debates over in Cafe Society over whether the Enterprise could defeat a Super Star Destroyer from Star Wars, except that the folks in Cafe Society (for the most part) know they're just goofing. But the folks in Great Debates think the shit they're shooting is for real.

Thus it is with same sex marriage. So your ancient holy book says it's bad. Boo-fucking-hoo, it's an obvious collection of rants by guys who wouldn't last a week on the Straight Dope.

After awhile, you want to think about interesting and productive things instead of helping out the laggards in the back of the class.

[gum]

Originally posted by Evil CaptorSo your ancient holy book says it's bad. Boo-fucking-hoo, it's an obvious collection of rants by guys who wouldn't last a week on the Straight Dope. :: clapping wildly:: Hehehehehe, can you imagine a story-teller, who wrote some chapters in the bible, in the pit?

"I tell you the man walked on water! Fuck you for not believing me. My post is my cite!" ;)

[John Mace]

...Given the demographics from the key states, it looks as if they're conservative Christians...

Well, I guess it comes down to the difference between "Evanvelicals and fundamentalsits", per your original post, and "conservative Christians". You still seem to be using these terms interchangeably. And yet your very own cite says that there is no evidence that Evangelical turnout this time was greater than last. So what is it? If those two terms are the same, then there is no evidence that the group, whatever term you use to define it, turned out in larger numbers. If the two groups are different, then what is the difference? Who, exactly, are we talking about.

IOW, what is the difference between a "conservative Christian" and an "evangelical/fundamentalis"? If you define your terms, we can probably resolve this.

[John Mace]

Here's the way to look at it:

Number of votes for Bush in 2000: 50,456,002

Number of votes for Bush in 2004: 61,910,839

Lets say it was 50.5M vs 62.0M, or a delta of 9.5M

That is, at least 9.5M more people* voted for Bush this time as compared to last time. You can slice and dice that 9.5M population six ways from Sunday, and claim that any subgroup was the "swing voters".

If you want to focus on swing states, it would make more sense to look at NM and NH, since those states swtiched parties relative to 2000. Ohio went for Bush in both elections.

*for simplicity, lets ignore the voters who passed away since 2000 as well as those who turne 18 yrs old since then

[Voyager]

TI am wondering why the non-religious don't seem to feel that the discussion has as implication that their marriage is als looked at also not "moral".
If you see "marriage" as something religious because of your religion, then in my idea the "non-religious marriage" of heteros must be seen by the religious as something "abnormal" as well, since not involving a religious ceremony.

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that any religious person in the US looks on a non-religious marriage as abnormal? I got married in the Ethical Culture Society, with no mention of any deity, and in over 26 years I've never noticed an objection. Movies often have the hero and heroine being married by a justice of the peace. Your idea of the US is quite odd sometimes.

[Siege]

My father is not religious, although, technically speaking, he's not quite American, either. He and my mother who more or less considers herself a lapsed Christian both oppose gay marriage and, to some extent, homosexuality in general. It's not because of anything in the Bible; it's simply because to them homosexuality is different. It wasn't talked about in their generation and they don't understand why we need to talk about it now. To them, it is about "flaunting their homosexuality", even though I've pointed out that jayjay, for example, no more flaunts his homosexuality than I flaunt my heterosexuality when I talk about the wonderful man I've been seeing. I'd say they haven't thought much about homosexuality and would prefer not to. I've no doubt that if one of my siblings or I had turned out to be gay, they would have readjusted their attitudes and welcomed their child's spouse into their home, but it would be difficult. As it is, they are getting used to the idea. When they were growing up in England, they could tell themselves they didn't know anyone who was homosexual or, if they did, no one talked about it; it simply was. Now they feel like they're being forced to talk about something they'd just as soon not.

I don't consider my parents bigots, and their attitudes are changing. They are, however, rather big on conformity, not making waves, and coming to terms with the status quo. Bringing home someone of the same sex and announcing one's intention to marry that person does challenge the status quo, however wrong that status quo is. For what it's worth, they despaired of me because I insisted on being different in other ways, even though I had no idea how to change it. It's more evidence that things are not as they were and can't go back to that way.


Aldebaran, I just wanted to let you know that it's tonight that I'll be singing Handel's Messiah. I'll spare a thought for you while I do.


CJ
2nd Alto, 1st row

[Loopydude]

IOW, what is the difference between a "conservative Christian" and an "evangelical/fundamentalis"? If you define your terms, we can probably resolve this.

This may indeed be a mistake. One forehead-smacker moment I've had reading and re-reading articles is my failure to remember the potential importance of Latino Catholics in FL, to give an example. By focusing rather narrowly on a subset of Protestants (as Evangelicals most commonly are), I've been essentially ignoring the importance of Catholic values-motivated voters in other areas, for instance. So while the prior statements about "conservative Christians", and their importance as new voters (or even swing voters) may in fact be as valid as I think, being to fixated on the "Evangelicals" may not be all that sound an evaluation. Perhaps I have been sucked into the media oversimplification, as you have suggested, after all.

[Homebrew]

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that any religious person in the US looks on a non-religious marriage as abnormal? I got married in the Ethical Culture Society, with no mention of any deity, and in over 26 years I've never noticed an objection. Movies often have the hero and heroine being married by a justice of the peace. Your idea of the US is quite odd sometimes.I think you're misreading his question. It's a good question he asks, which really has two parts. If the objection to SSM is religiously you (rhetorical, not personal you) don't want your marriages corrupted, then why are you not bothered by non-religious, or even anti-religious, people being married in non-Christian ceremonies?

On the flip side, if you are non-religious or not Christian, why don't you see the danger in Christians defining marriage? I think rjung, who answered the question rather than get all defensive, is right that it is more a matter of being drowned out and having insufficient numbers than being silent or uninterested in the issue.

Yeah, because we all know that every Moslem country in the world has recognized SSM for generations, right?Red herring or tu quoque? The question was about Christian objections to SSM in America. It matters not what any Muslim country does.

Some folks are just so pugnacious towards Aldebaran that it's pathetic. He looks at the U.S. through a different lens then most of us. And that is good. It's helpful to have an outsider's questions and POV. He can sometimes see flaws that we're inured to or don't even see.

[rjung]

Number of votes for Bush in 2000: 50,456,002

Number of votes for Bush in 2004: 61,910,839

Lets say it was 50.5M vs 62.0M, or a delta of 9.5M

That is, at least 9.5M more people* voted for Bush this time as compared to last time.
So, how many more people voted against Bush in 2004 as compared to 2000? Just for balance's sake.

[John Mace]

So, how many more people voted against Bush in 2004 as compared to 2000? Just for balance's sake.

This wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004) is great for election results. Just change the date in the URL for whatever election you want. It has all the stats, and is where I got the Bush numbers.

[Voyager]

I think you're misreading his question. It's a good question he asks, which really has two parts. If the objection to SSM is religiously you (rhetorical, not personal you) don't want your marriages corrupted, then why are you not bothered by non-religious, or even anti-religious, people being married in non-Christian ceremonies?

On the flip side, if you are non-religious or not Christian, why don't you see the danger in Christians defining marriage? I think rjung, who answered the question rather than get all defensive, is right that it is more a matter of being drowned out and having insufficient numbers than being silent or uninterested in the issue.


I was responding to this


TI am wondering why the non-religious don't seem to feel that the discussion has as implication that their marriage is als looked at also not "moral".
If you see "marriage" as something religious because of your religion, then in my idea the "non-religious marriage" of heteros must be seen by the religious as something "abnormal" as well, since not involving a religious ceremony.

which seems to address non-religious, straight, marriages.

Marriage is a social contract which predates Christianity by quite a bit. Christianity adopting marriage doesn't bother me. I am bothered if the definition of marriage gets religiously, rather than socially, defined. If the anti-SSM crowd could demonstrate social ills from not allowing it, we'd have something to talk about - at least we could try to balance the good and the bad, and see where we come out. However they seem to only assert that there is some dreadful social cost, never demonstrate it. So the opposition seems to boil down to being Biblically based, which is not acceptable by itself, or in some cases driven by bigotry, also not acceptable. Any religious person opposing SSM because of what his or her god supposedly should be covered here, not just Christians. And atheist homophobes fall into the second category.

[John Mace]

Red herring or tu quoque?

Neither. How about a direct response to this in the OP (my bolding):

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.

Last I looked, Moslems were non-Christians.


The question was about Christian objections to SSM in America. It matters not what any Muslim country does.

It does when the OP claims that non-Christians are "largely silent" on the issue..

Some folks are just so pugnacious towards Aldebaran that it's pathetic. He looks at the U.S. through a different lens then most of us. And that is good. It's helpful to have an outsider's questions and POV. He can sometimes see flaws that we're inured to or don't even see.

I'm not aware of any instances where that has been true yet, including this time. Not to say it might not happen sometime in the future. I'll acknowledge it when it actually happens.

[borschevsky]

(the article mentions Warran Co., OH, where the voter turnout increased by 18,000 over 2000)
By 9? :D

[capacitor]

It is simple: evangelical and conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are now totally, probably permanently, pissed off by militant atheists and atheism. The more you insult them and their beliefs, the more persecuted they will feel, and the more obligated they will fight back even more harshly any legal way they can.

The election of Bush is just the beginning of their wrath.

[jayjay]

It is simple: evangelical and conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are now totally, probably permanently, pissed off by militant atheists and atheism. The more you insult them and their beliefs, the more persecuted they will feel, and the more obligated they will fight back even more harshly any legal way they can.

The election of Bush is just the beginning of their wrath.

Oh, my, yes. Those vast armies of American atheists who will certainly outnumber and subjugate the poor, trembling minority of traditional religionists hiding in the shadowed darkness of their few poor refuges...

[rjung]

It is simple: evangelical and conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are now totally, probably permanently, pissed off by militant atheists and atheism. The more you insult them and their beliefs, the more persecuted they will feel, and the more obligated they will fight back even more harshly any legal way they can.
:rolleyes:

The problem is that their idea of "persecution" is "anything less than a theocracy devoted to my beliefs."

[Zsofia]

TI am wondering why the non-religious don't seem to feel that the discussion has as implication that their marriage is als looked at also not "moral".
If you see "marriage" as something religious because of your religion, then in my idea the "non-religious marriage" of heteros must be seen by the religious as something "abnormal" as well, since not involving a religious ceremony.

An interesting facet of American life that I don't think is as true in other countries is that people who might not necessarily describe themselves as religious, who consider themselves "lapsed" churchgoers or even agnostics or atheists will often have a church wedding. Of course, many do not, but many do, for various reasons: your parents want one, that's what you see a "wedding" as, etc, etc, etc. Religion in America is often more complex than I think many people from other places really realize. People often tend to go back to the church for marriages and funerals even if they've purposefully not darkened the door in thirty years.

Personally, I'm an agnostic who was raised Presbyterian, and my family is very religious. If I ever get married, it will probably be a church wedding, albeit with a little less "god" in it than some might have. My family has many friends in the church who have known me since I was a fetus, I have a close relationship with our old pastor (although I haven't seen him in church for ten years), etc. And I probably won't be able to get him to take the "god" entirely out of the ceremony, and while intellectually I think that ought to bother me it really dosen't - I suppose because my idea of what a wedding should be like is the old "we are gathered together" ritual.

I really do think opposition to gay marriage comes from fear of change, because I can't come up with another reason for it. The guy I'm currently seeing seems quite open-minded, has no problem with my gay friends, etc, etc, etc - he seemed entirely "like us", I guess. And then out of nowhere he comes up with "I've got nothin' against gay people and civil unions and all but I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." And the only explanation I can think of for that sort of thing is that people are scared of change. A lot of people are like that, I think - he's only nominally religious if you ask him, and I don't get the feeling that's really what made him say that. It isn't just the people who really think there's a religious issue with it - it's the ordinary "culturally Christian" people whose "marriage tradition" is one way, and they're afraid of changing it.

[John Mace]

:rolleyes:

The problem is that their idea of "persecution" is "anything less than a theocracy devoted to my beliefs."

Yeah, because people are either completely secular, or they want a theocracy. There is nothing inbetween. :rolleyes:

[Regallag_The_Axe]

The issue with gay marriage for many, both religious and non-, is that of the word. Many believe that the word "marriage" itself refers, by definition, to a man and a woman. Many are in favor of some sort of "union" that would grant same sex couples the same rights as married couples (but a different word for it).
The issue, for them, is as if there was a movement to rename anything with wheels a car. Just because something has wheels does not make it a car, but tht doesn't mean that such a thing should not exist. It should just have different name.

Hoping I answered your querry,
Regallag the Axe

[rjung]

Yeah, because people are either completely secular, or they want a theocracy. There is nothing inbetween. :rolleyes:
Hey, if they're loony enough to consider themselves "persecuted" in the United States, (http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/lioaca.html) they're loony enough to believe in such a dichotomy.

[Polycarp]

Yeah, because people are either completely secular, or they want a theocracy. There is nothing inbetween. :rolleyes:

John and Rjung, can we stop playing "I can be more sarcastically extreme than you."

In point of fact, there are a few [insert a plural noun acceptable to Gaudere here; the ones I'd use would not be] who do wish to institute an American theocracy -- the Christian Reconstructionists discussed in another recent thread.

However, what Rjung said was an exaggeration of a fact-based concept. There are decent people who would be quick to help a flooded-out neighbor, give to the 9/11 victims, reach out in compassion, etc., who are nonetheless convinced that their certitude about God and what He expects of them gives them the authority to institute laws compelling people to do what He commands, as they understand those commandments. The school prayer issue is not seen as a county school superintendent enforcing his beliefs on all the kids in his school system, but rather as "the atheists trying to force God out of schools." The gay marriage issue is seen as "the subversion of the institution of marriage by trying to redefine it to publicly condone sexual perversion." And so on.

I really think that anyone who has not been exposed to this frame of mind will have a hard time grasping how someone can reasonably hold it. But they are not slack-jawed stereotypes; they're real people who claim to be loyal to America and the Constitution, have decent hearts, and are certain of the rightness of the laws they want to see in place "to protect Christianity from those trying to destroy it."

[John Mace]

Hey, if they're loony enough to consider themselves "persecuted" in the United States, (http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/lioaca.html) they're loony enough to believe in such a dichotomy.

Of course there are pepple loony enough to want a theocracy-- here and in other countries as well. But it does no good in a serious discussion to lump all deeply religious people in that category, unless all you want to do is insult them. What point were you actually trying to make, exactly? Why make a claim in GD that "evangelical and conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews" all want to impose a theocracy on the US? I'd seriously like to know.

[Mr. Slant]

:rolleyes:

The problem is that their idea of "persecution" is "anything less than a theocracy devoted to my beliefs."

rjung, may I make that my tagline?

[rjung]

Help yourself.

(And anyone who thinks Christians are "persecuted" in the United States these days is welcome to hie down to the nearest Mega-Ultraplex-Shopping-Mall this month and see for themselves just how much persecution is goin' on... ;) )

[Magiver]

The issue with gay marriage for many, both religious and non-, is that of the word. Many believe that the word "marriage" itself refers, by definition, to a man and a woman. Many are in favor of some sort of "union" that would grant same sex couples the same rights as married couples (but a different word for it).
The issue, for them, is as if there was a movement to rename anything with wheels a car. Just because something has wheels does not make it a car, but tht doesn't mean that such a thing should not exist. It should just have different name.

Hoping I answered your querry,
Regallag the Axe
What Regallag_The_Axe said. There is a difference between reinventing the institution of marriage and wanting to intervene in someone's private relationship. They are not mutually inclusive. Civil unions carry a greater acceptance among both religious and non-religious groups (more so with non-religious groups).

I'm not sure why non-Americans find our legal machinations interesting or relevant. Maybe the changes we face in law will have a mellowing affect on societies where there is no tolerance for homosexual relationships (in whatever countries those societies exist).

[Milkman Dan]

It is simple: evangelical and conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are now totally, probably permanently, pissed off by militant atheists and atheism. The more you insult them and their beliefs, the more persecuted they will feel, and the more obligated they will fight back even more harshly any legal way they can.

The election of Bush is just the beginning of their wrath.
So what, you think we should avoid criticizing the mentalfundalists so they don't elect bad leaders out of spite? Since they aren't interested in engaging with reasonable society to begin with, how do you propose that we address them?

[Milkman Dan]

Maybe the changes we face in law will have a mellowing affect on societies where there is no tolerance for homosexual relationships (in whatever countries those societies exist).
I think we call them the 'red states' now.

[Magiver]

Help yourself.

(And anyone who thinks Christians are "persecuted" in the United States these days is welcome to hie down to the nearest Mega-Ultraplex-Shopping-Mall this month and see for themselves just how much persecution is goin' on... ;) )

And anyone who thinks Christians are not persecuted in the US should go down to the nearest school and mention the word "God" in a sentence. Christians suffer the lion's-share of persecution for an interpretation of the constitution that even Caesar would find amazing.

And no, I don't hold myself to a particular religion.

[Magiver]

I think we call them the 'red states' now.
I don't recall any "blue state" candidates endorsing a change in the definition of marriage. So your statement should read "the majority of US Citizens". Which would also be in error when addressing civil unions. Which was my point.

[Marley23]

What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.
What is the interest of this group in having the homosexual community refused to have their unions celebrated and sealed with the certificate (and obviously the benefits) of marriage?
IAUSNRH*, and I also don't understand where you came up with this. I have plenty of atheist and non-Christian friends (I'm an atheist myself), and they're all totally pro-SSM. And for that matter, so are my Christian friends.

*I'm a US non-religious hetero

And anyone who thinks Christians are not persecuted in the US should go down to the nearest school and mention the word "God" in a sentence. Christians suffer the lion's-share of persecution for an interpretation of the constitution that even Caesar would find amazing.
Saying you're not religious does not make this statement any less absurd. Prejudice against god in schools, if we make a gigantic leap for a moment and assume it exists, which it doesn't, is not the same as persecution against a particular group of people who believe in god. A minority can't persecute a majority when the majority is running the country.

[Magiver]

Saying you're not religious does not make this statement any less absurd. Prejudice against god in schools, if we make a gigantic leap for a moment and assume it exists, which it doesn't, is not the same as persecution against a particular group of people who believe in god. A minority can't persecute a majority when the majority is running the country. Could you please explain this to the US Supreme Court. Nowhere in any document does it elude to the mere mention of God as a defacto state sponsored indoctrination. However, due to court rulings it is now unlawful for a Valedictorian to thank God for his or her success in school.

And I didn't say I wasn't religious, I said I don't hold to a particular religion.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

And anyone who thinks Christians are not persecuted in the US should go down to the nearest school and mention the word "God" in a sentence.
yeah, whatever. I do presentations at elementary schools, and I've had teachers thank me by saying, "God bless you for what you do!"

Your point?
Daniel

[Polycarp]

Could you please explain this to the US Supreme Court. Nowhere in any document does it elude to the mere mention of God as a defacto state sponsored indoctrination. However, due to court rulings it is now unlawful for a Valedictorian to thank God for his or her success in school.

And I didn't say I wasn't religious, I said I don't hold to a particular religion.

Magiver, do you have a clue how to construe the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together? Because there are reasonable grounds for holding a different opinion than the Supremes on issues at hand -- but the above ain't one of them.

It's quite legitimate for a Valedictorian to thank God for his or her success in school in private, or at a voluntary public gathering that can include everybody graduating from school, their parents, the school board, and all nine members of the Supreme Court for that matter, or in church, or on the school grounds whenever reasonable school regulations on student behavior do not prohibit it.

What he or she may not do is, at a graduation ceremony, attendance at which is mandatory for a student to graduate, where he or she has the privilege of making a Valedictorian speech, use the occasion to evangelize his or her fellow graduates -- because he or she is coopting the authority of government -- remember that attendance at the graduation ceremony is mandatory to receive one's diploma -- to press his or her religious views.

You may want to review Cole v. Oroville Union High School (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ColeOroville.htm). My distinct impression is that a student who acknowledged his or her fellow students' diversity of beliefs (and disbelief) and in the course of acknowledging influences on his/her life included a reference to God's Providence and his/her own gratefulness for His blessing, without extensive discourse of evangelistic nature, would not violate the Establishment clause but would instead be exercising his/her own Free Exercise clause rights. This is illustrated by the discussion about Cole's and Niemeyer's speeches in the constitutional context in the cited review of the case. (Sorry to use "About Atheism" -- as a sincere and freedom-loving Christian, I have to admit that they are one of the few unbiased sources around on the background behind what the Court actually said!)

The point, if it's not clear, is whether anyone can use government authority to compel someone else to listen to what he/she has to say about religious belief -- they cannot -- not about whether or not anyone has the right to speak their mind -- they do. The one thing they may not do is use the power of any part of government whatsoever to compel themselves a captive audience.

[GomiBoy]

Aldebaran-
Don't feel too bad - we are a confusing bunch, especially when religion mixes with politics. And we're pretty damn conflicted, especially about anything to do with sex. Outwardly conservative, but inside closed doors we're a randy bunch shagging most anything that moves! Just ask Bill O'reilly of Fox News! :)

There were already a few threads on same-sex marriage in the US.
I had my questions about the (ab)use of the word “marriage” in this context answered. As I understand, it comes down to confusion about the real meaning of the word “marriage” in a civil context, because religious clergy has also the mandate to act as civil servant, signing and legalizing the civil marriage at the same ceremony as the religious one.
For some reasons Christians don’t seem to be able to make any distinction between “religious” marriage and civil marriage without any religious ceremony involved.

The thing you might be misunderstanding is that a 'civil' ceremony is not really differentiated from a 'religious' one in the US, at least in the legal sense. Any legally-defined church can perform a marriage that bears equal power in law to a civil ceremony, so it's not a lot of difference as far as most people are concerned. And as already posted, lots of folks who aren't religious themselves have church weddings simply to keep the family / in-laws / nosy neighbors happy, or just cause they want a big special deal in a church cause that's what they always wanted.

To add more conflict to this already simmering pot, there is a law, called the Full Faith and Credence act, in the US which states that any state must recognize the ceremonies of another state. I could be married to my future spouse in the Great Church Bugga-Bugga who Likes Not Very Much in Washington state, and as long as that marriage was legal there Texas (or any other of the 50 states) would have no choice but to regognize my marriage as legally binding, so long as it didn't break local laws (against bestiality or incest, for instance). This law also means that should California (or Massachusets) have same-sex marriage be legal, when that couple moved to Texas they would still be married in the eyes of the law.


What I don’t understand is why these religious people (I think here mainly Christians) can be so vocal about the issue, hindering and blocking its legalisation actively by all means possible, while the non Christian heterosexual seem to remain uninterested or at least largely silent.
What is the interest of this group in having the homosexual community refused to have their unions celebrated and sealed with the certificate (and obviously the benefits) of marriage?


Quite simply, because their spiritual leaders tell them they should. These people are being told loudly and vocally that their duty as Christians in America is to do what they can to prevent same sex marriage. It's not a lot different than the preaching of the Imams at prayer in the Muslim world - they tell their followers what to care about.

As to what motivates the leaders to deny this right to same sex couples, lord only knows. Their public stance is that SSM will destroy the Christian family, and that it will pervert all forms of family life due to it's very existence.

As for the relative silence of the people who do not want a SSM marriage constitutional ban, it's important that you realize the most crucial word of your own phrase - relative. We're just quiet in comparison to the shouting going on from the other side. People who've just lost a huge election badly tend to try to be quiet for a while, in an effort to regroup and rearm and get ready for another try.

The above is only my 2p (or cents or whatever), of course, you can take it or leave it.

[BwanaBob]

To me this whole issue is word-play.

If you bought a bus (the kind you see in cities carrying 80 people to and fro) and told everyone "look at my new car", people would look at you funny.

To you, it's just a motor vehicle, and motor vehicle == car.

But to others thats not true. A car is a special type of motor vehicle.

So take marriage.

Marriage == man + woman.

Civil Union == person + person.

All marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages.

For me it's just words. I have no problem with civil-unions for all (provided they are not treated differently as "marriages").

[GomiBoy]

To me this whole issue is word-play.

If you bought a bus (the kind you see in cities carrying 80 people to and fro) and told everyone "look at my new car", people would look at you funny.

To you, it's just a motor vehicle, and motor vehicle == car.

But to others thats not true. A car is a special type of motor vehicle.

So take marriage.

Marriage == man + woman.

Civil Union == person + person.

All marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages.

For me it's just words. I have no problem with civil-unions for all (provided they are not treated differently as "marriages").

That is an excellent way of putting it, and I agree completely. But on the other hand, I am not gay and neither am I religious. So it's kind of a moot issue in my own back yard.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

For me it's just words. I have no problem with civil-unions for all (provided they are not treated differently as "marriages").

I've heard two objections to this that I consider legitimate:

1) If the civil unions are available to all, but some people are able to get legal marriages in addition, then this creates a door through which discrimination can enter.
2) If there's no such thing as legal marriages, then our comity agreements with other countries (in which we recognize their marriages and they recognize ours) have got to be rewritten. Some folks believe that this will be a more difficult process than if we just expand our own definition of marriage. I disagree, but concede that it's possible.

Daniel

[Magiver]

Magiver, do you have a clue how to construe the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together? Because there are reasonable grounds for holding a different opinion than the Supremes on issues at hand -- but the above ain't one of them.

It's quite legitimate for a Valedictorian to thank God for his or her success in school in private, or at a voluntary public gathering that can include everybody graduating from school, their parents, the school board, and all nine members of the Supreme Court for that matter, or in church, or on the school grounds whenever reasonable school regulations on student behavior do not prohibit it.

What he or she may not do is, at a graduation ceremony, attendance at which is mandatory for a student to graduate, where he or she has the privilege of making a Valedictorian speech, use the occasion to evangelize his or her fellow graduates -- because he or she is coopting the authority of government -- remember that attendance at the graduation ceremony is mandatory to receive one's diploma -- to press his or her religious views.

You may want to review Cole v. Oroville Union High School (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ColeOroville.htm). My distinct impression is that a student who acknowledged his or her fellow students' diversity of beliefs (and disbelief) and in the course of acknowledging influences on his/her life included a reference to God's Providence and his/her own gratefulness for His blessing, without extensive discourse of evangelistic nature, would not violate the Establishment clause but would instead be exercising his/her own Free Exercise clause rights. This is illustrated by the discussion about Cole's and Niemeyer's speeches in the constitutional context in the cited review of the case. (Sorry to use "About Atheism" -- as a sincere and freedom-loving Christian, I have to admit that they are one of the few unbiased sources around on the background behind what the Court actually said!)

The point, if it's not clear, is whether anyone can use government authority to compel someone else to listen to what he/she has to say about religious belief -- they cannot -- not about whether or not anyone has the right to speak their mind -- they do. The one thing they may not do is use the power of any part of government whatsoever to compel themselves a captive audience.
I'm not sure it's relevant to the discussion but attendance of a ceremony is NOT mandatory to get a degree. I had my college degree mailed to me because I didn't want to snore through a bunch of crap.

I read your link (thanks for positing it) and agree with the school policy but the court decision was rather criptic in it's delivery. snip quote from article: The invocation would not have been private speech, because the District authorized an invocation as part of the graduation ceremony held on District property, allowed only a student selected by a vote of his classmates to give an invocation and no doubt would have used a microphone or public address system to amplify the invocation to the audience at the graduation ceremony. .

The Supreme Court let the 9th Circuite ruling stand which seems to be a grey area. If the District reviews a speech then it is a defacto sponsor of the materical. If it's not a grey area and your impression is correct then I stand corrected. Your point is valid.

[New Iskander]

Marriage == man + woman.Marriage==Social Institution, as in:"Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who would want to live in an institution?"Marriage binds two ancestral lines of diverse lineage into... well, not exactly a Paradise.

As to Aldebaran, you don't have to ask US'ers about societal difficulties to acceptance of same-sex marriage. Conduct a simple thought experiment. Take any Muslim country. Imagine that a strong SSM movement takes root there. Imagine the reaction to that movement. Now take a long sojourn in the West, come back in 10 years, remove all the corpses and clear all the destruction. Assess the situation, then reduce the violence by the factor of 1,000 or so. That would be comparable to US.

[Magiver]

I've heard two objections to this that I consider legitimate:

1) If the civil unions are available to all, but some people are able to get legal marriages in addition, then this creates a door through which discrimination can enter.
2) If there's no such thing as legal marriages, then our comity agreements with other countries (in which we recognize their marriages and they recognize ours) have got to be rewritten. Some folks believe that this will be a more difficult process than if we just expand our own definition of marriage. I disagree, but concede that it's possible.

Daniel
Good post (or re-post). You are the first person (I've seen) to add something interesting to the discussion. It gives me something to think about.

On a personal note: If someone says "God bless you for your efforts" that should taken with the love and respect for which it was given, not as an attempt to convert you. If someone from another culture were to bestow upon me such good intentions I would feel honored for receiving it because it means that person appreciates me and my efforts.

Whatever you did to get this "blessing" I hope you keep doing it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Good post (or re-post). You are the first person (I've seen) to add something interesting to the discussion. It gives me something to think about.

Thanks--I appreciate it! FWIW, I'm slightly in favor of the solution of civil unions for everyone, under (roughly) the following plan:
1) All existing marriages are grandfathered in.
2) An announcement is made that any two, non-married, non-civil-unioned adults may forthwith jointly apply for a civil union certificate. This certificate will grant precisely the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage certificate.
3) A simultaneous announcement is made that, starting one year from today ("today" being whatever day this Master Plan goes into effect) the state will stop issuing marriage certificates. From that point on, the state's only opinion on marriages is that those issued prior to such a date will be treated exactly like civil unions. The state will not care whether you want to marry your boyfriend, girlfriend, guppy, refrigerator, or ten imaginary friends. That's up to you and your buds.

To this plan, the only objections I've heard that gives me any real pause are:
1) Chance in hell that it'll be adopted. (I actually think it stands a better chance of being adopted than a SSM plan, given the state of our country; but I'm not sure).
2) The comity argument. Again, I'm not convinced by it--I think our 800-pound-gorilla status could serve us well on renegotiating comity agreements, and I think that my proposal is *more* likely to gain acceptance in conservative countries than a SSM proposal--but I'm not sure.

On a personal note: If someone says "God bless you for your efforts" that should taken with the love and respect for which it was given, not as an attempt to convert you. If someone from another culture were to bestow upon me such good intentions I would feel honored for receiving it because it means that person appreciates me and my efforts.

Whatever you did to get this "blessing" I hope you keep doing it.

Thanks, and I try to accept it in that spirit. Although imagine that you go to a school, and the obviously pagan teacher says, "Bright blessings!" to you. Would you feel even a teensy bit awkward? I know I do. I thank them for it, but I still feel a little weird about it.

As for what I do, I talk to kids about taking care of animals, about animal abuse, and that sort of thing. It's my favorite part of my job.

Daniel

[Magiver]

Thanks--I appreciate it! FWIW, I'm slightly in favor of the solution of civil unions for everyone, under (roughly) the following plan:
1) All existing marriages are grandfathered in.
2) An announcement is made that any two, non-married, non-civil-unioned adults may forthwith jointly apply for a civil union certificate. This certificate will grant precisely the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage certificate.
3) A simultaneous announcement is made that, starting one year from today ("today" being whatever day this Master Plan goes into effect) the state will stop issuing marriage certificates. From that point on, the state's only opinion on marriages is that those issued prior to such a date will be treated exactly like civil unions. The state will not care whether you want to marry your boyfriend, girlfriend, guppy, refrigerator, or ten imaginary friends. That's up to you and your buds.

To this plan, the only objections I've heard that gives me any real pause are:
1) Chance in hell that it'll be adopted. (I actually think it stands a better chance of being adopted than a SSM plan, given the state of our country; but I'm not sure).
2) The comity argument. Again, I'm not convinced by it--I think our 800-pound-gorilla status could serve us well on renegotiating comity agreements, and I think that my proposal is *more* likely to gain acceptance in conservative countries than a SSM proposal--but I'm not sure.



Thanks, and I try to accept it in that spirit. Although imagine that you go to a school, and the obviously pagan teacher says, "Bright blessings!" to you. Would you feel even a teensy bit awkward? I know I do. I thank them for it, but I still feel a little weird about it.

As for what I do, I talk to kids about taking care of animals, about animal abuse, and that sort of thing. It's my favorite part of my job.

Daniel I think the problem is that there are people who want to marry 10 puppies (yes I get the exageration). Now you're getting into the slippery slope area of social laws (laws that dictate behavior which the majority of people want to abide by). Those laws change with the tide of opinion and that opens up a can of worms that I'm not in the mood to dine on (those reality shows are starting to get to me).

There is another thing to consider down the road and that is the ability to alter a child's sexual destiny. I suspect the question of homosexuality will fade over time as technology advances. The long spoken adage of gay people who say they wouldn't choose their lifestyle will take on new meaning in the future (oiy, another can of worms).

The "bright blessings" thing made me laugh. I get your point. Kinda depends how serious you take the person's spiritual feelings. I task you from this day forward with the duty not to laugh when someone dings you with their magic wand. Which has now been made harder by the image I just gave you (sorry).

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I think the problem is that there are people who want to marry 10 puppies (yes I get the exageration). Now you're getting into the slippery slope area of social laws (laws that dictate behavior which the majority of people want to abide by). Those laws change with the tide of opinion and that opens up a can of worms that I'm not in the mood to dine on (those reality shows are starting to get to me).

On the contrary: under my proposal, someone who wants to marry their ten puppies is perfectly welcome to go ahead and do so, just like currently they're welcome to baptize those ten puppies, canonize those ten puppies, or declare those ten puppies to be Co-Presidentes of Caninia. There would be no legal ramifications whatsoever of their actions. There would be no legal ramifications whatsoever of any marriage issued after my plan went into effect.

My goal is to get rid of social laws, not to use social laws to engineer the society I want.

There is another thing to consider down the road and that is the ability to alter a child's sexual destiny. I suspect the question of homosexuality will fade over time as technology advances. The long spoken adage of gay people who say they wouldn't choose their lifestyle will take on new meaning in the future (oiy, another can of worms).

My pardon, but I'm not sure that's relevant. Even if I stipulated that it'd be relevant once technology advanced to such a state (and I'm not at all convinced it would be), we can no more base current policy off that than we can base our current transportation technology off Star Trek transporter units. We work with what we have, not with what we may or may not have.

The "bright blessings" thing made me laugh. I get your point. Kinda depends how serious you take the person's spiritual feelings. I task you from this day forward with the duty not to laugh when someone dings you with their magic wand. Which has now been made harder by the image I just gave you (sorry).

Trust me: as an atheist, I'm a pro at not laughing.
Daniel

[Magiver]

Left Hand of Dorkness,

Removing all social laws won't fly (as you alluded to with your opinion on the chances of it happening) and I'm not sure I would want to take the trip. The longest and most successful reigns in history have revolved around social structure. I don't think humanity has evolved even close to the concept of a society without any pre-conceived norms. I think you could write books on the subject.

Wish I could have availed myself of your expertise when I got my first cat. We had quite a go around before we reached an agreement.

[The Flying Dutchman]

not[/b] do is, at a graduation ceremony, attendance at which is mandatory for a student to graduate, where he or she has the privilege of making a Valedictorian speech, use the occasion to evangelize his or her fellow graduates -- because he or she is coopting the authority of government -- remember that attendance at the graduation ceremony is mandatory to receive one's diploma -- to press his or her religious views.



This subtle distinction to support the infringement of one's free speech just doesn't impress me. I'm hard pressed to work up the victimization that I would experience if a muslim student thanked Allah for his scholastic achievements as graduation valedictorian.

Co-opting the authority of government ? Tell that to the framers of your constitution. Your law requires attendance at graduation to get a diploma? Geez, you guys might want to move up to Canada. I got my grade 12 and my grade 13 honours diploma without attending the graduation ceremonies.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Left Hand of Dorkness,

Removing all social laws won't fly (as you alluded to with your opinion on the chances of it happening) and I'm not sure I would want to take the trip.

Not sure what laws you're including here, then. If we're just talking about sexual morality laws, then I think it'd be great to get rid of all the ones that interfere with consenting adults doing what they want.

As for basing our standards off those of long-lasting empires, I don't so much like that idea. Plenty of long-lasting empires lasted a long time through pretty unsavory practices, be they torture of prisoners, slavery, or genocide of their enemies. We should base our society off what is ethical, not off of what's going to lead to our long-term dominance.

Daniel

[Voyager]

I've heard two objections to this that I consider legitimate:

1) If the civil unions are available to all, but some people are able to get legal marriages in addition, then this creates a door through which discrimination can enter.
2) If there's no such thing as legal marriages, then our comity agreements with other countries (in which we recognize their marriages and they recognize ours) have got to be rewritten. Some folks believe that this will be a more difficult process than if we just expand our own definition of marriage. I disagree, but concede that it's possible.

Daniel

The one big difference, right now, is that civil unions do not confer many federal benefits that marriage does. So they are separate and not equal. If various federal regulations were changed to make civil unions the same as marriage, in terms of benefits, I suspect that at least some of the furor would die down. (But not all, since your point on discrimination is a good one.) That this is not happening is a good indicator that protection of marriage is not the only thing going on here.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The one big difference, right now, is that civil unions do not confer many federal benefits that marriage does. So they are separate and not equal. If various federal regulations were changed to make civil unions the same as marriage, in terms of benefits, I suspect that at least some of the furor would die down. (But not all, since your point on discrimination is a good one.) That this is not happening is a good indicator that protection of marriage is not the only thing going on here.

I should add that my proposal would really only work if instituted on a federal level, for this reason.

Of course the federal government can't trump an individual state's marriage rules. But what they could do is refuse to offer any federal benefits (e.g., income tax recognition, payment of SS benefits to spouses) of marriages performed by states after a certain point, instead recognizing only civil unions after a certain point.

Which makes my proposal even more unrealistic, I know. Alternatively, the federal government could agree to provide state-issued civil unions with exactly the same R&R as state-issued marriages, and then leave it up to each state to enact my plan.

Daniel

[Voyager]

And anyone who thinks Christians are not persecuted in the US should go down to the nearest school and mention the word "God" in a sentence. Christians suffer the lion's-share of persecution for an interpretation of the constitution that even Caesar would find amazing.



I wasn't aware that Caesar had an opinion on the Constitution.

It amazes me that some people cannot distinguish discussing religion and ramming one's god down the throat of those with different beliefs. The notion that one cannot mention god in school is utter horse hockey. In 7th grade my daughter, in a very liberal California school, had a section in social studies on World Religions that was very well done. All religions were given equal time, no one tried to push one or the other, and all in all it was a model of how to teach about religion.

I hope you weren't thinking of this clown from Cupertino now in the news. First, non-Christian parents had complained about him before this happened. Second, as far as I can tell, he was presenting his class with a very one-sided view of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. If he showed them the Treaty of Tripoli, or talked about Jefferson's version of the Bible, or, Og forbid, told them about The Age of Reason, it hasn't been mentioned in the news around here.

Only 60 years ago my great-aunt had to lie about being Jewish - in New York, yet - to get a job. if Christians are ever persecuted in the US, they'll know it.

[Aldebaran]

What is the significance of "(ab)use" here? Are you implying something about marriage or American attitudes toward it?

The way the word marriage is used by the religious opponents of SSM.
They take the word “marriage” (as they use it to describe a purely religious ceremony) to obtain that their religious interpretation of a marriage is accepted (or at least is indoctrinated as if being) the only possible one that can be described with the word “marriage” in the US society.
It is not only abusing the word. It is even claiming the exclusive right on the word itself, as if they have the exclusive right to define what should be understood by it in the US society as a whole. To the non-religious part of that society it is a clear cultural message that in any case “marriage” can only be understood as union between man and woman.


Thus it is with same sex marriage. So your ancient holy book says it's bad. Boo-fucking-hoo, it's an obvious collection of rants by guys who wouldn't last a week on the Straight Dope.
After awhile, you want to think about interesting and productive things instead of helping out the laggards in the back of the class.

Yet if this issue shows itself to be of much focus and concern during a presidential election, don’t you think it is time for the atheist to pay more attention to its impact on the rest of the population and even on the choice of a president for the USA?
If you are not interested or concerned, then you silently approve and support the “collection of rants” that has showed itself to have the ability to play a significant role.

Aldebaran, I just wanted to let you know that it's tonight that I'll be singing Handel's Messiah. I'll spare a thought for you while I do.

Thank you. I hope the concert was a great success.


I think you're misreading his question. It's a good question he asks, which really has two parts. If the objection to SSM is religiously you (rhetorical, not personal you) don't want your marriages corrupted, then why are you not bothered by non-religious, or even anti-religious, people being married in non-Christian ceremonies?

On the flip side, if you are non-religious or not Christian, why don't you see the danger in Christians defining marriage? I think rjung, who answered the question rather than get all defensive, is right that it is more a matter of being drowned out and having insufficient numbers than being silent or uninterested in the issue.

Yes, this is what I mean. And the explanation of rjung is something I had in mind as a possibility.


Some folks are just so pugnacious towards Aldebaran that it's pathetic. He looks at the U.S. through a different lens then most of us. And that is good. It's helpful to have an outsider's questions and POV. He can sometimes see flaws that we're inured to or don't even see.

My conclusion on this:
US’ers commenting on USA 1 --> debated by other side of the spectrum, but in any case, they are still Made in USA 1, which gives them rights to post what they think about their USA.
Comments on USA1 from outside the USA --> debated and although not Made in USA, no big deal as long as they come from Western angle = A perspective that is not pre-defined as alien, hostile, hopeless uninformed and backwards/retarded.
Comments on USA 1 coming from Middle-Eastern/Arab/Muslim --> What?!?
To begin with: Camel-driving backwards Towel Heads are supposed to be in tents in a deserted desert, instead of having access to PC and Internet.
They can not read or write in their own language, do not hear or see anything besides Al Qur’an, are all recruiters of Terrorists or supporting these Evil Bastards = They are the incorporation of Backwardness and The Enemy by definition of their location and worldview.
Comes along one of these Sand-eating Towel Heads who has PC and internet and even can read an write and By God: Even does that using more or less The Sacred English Language. And what does this Lucky Guy with all these favours bestowed on him by Superior Western Civilisation?
He comes to a US message board and instead of showering it with admiration for the Land of the Free (unless you are homosexual wanting to get married and a few other minor details) he dares to make remarks and critiques on USA 1 and the Holy Bush Administration.

I witnessed the shockwaves of indignation since the beginning of my membership and I can understand it. Really, I can. Even my old camel and skinny goat - standing silently behind my black tent under a fabulous nightly sky with the Alpha Taura as one of its brightest stars - understand this. And they don’t even know how to read and write their own language.

An interesting facet of American life that I don't think is as true in other countries is that people who might not necessarily describe themselves as religious, who consider themselves "lapsed" churchgoers or even agnostics or atheists will often have a church wedding…/ … People often tend to go back to the church for marriages and funerals even if they've purposefully not darkened the door in thirty years… /… It isn't just the people who really think there's a religious issue with it - it's the ordinary "culturally Christian" people whose "marriage tradition" is one way…

Exactly the same happens in Belgium.
In Belgium SSM is a legal (and largely socially accepted) procedure.

The issue with gay marriage for many, both religious and non-, is that of the word… / …The issue, for them, is as if there was a movement to rename anything with wheels a car. Just because something has wheels does not make it a car, but tht doesn't mean that such a thing should not exist. It should just have different name.

Yes, that is what I meant with “abuse” of the word.

The thing you might be misunderstanding is that a 'civil' ceremony is not really differentiated from a 'religious' one in the US, at least in the legal sense.
No, that was what I referred to in the OP = explained in an other thread, and in my view this habit is one of the main causes for this whole issue in the USA.

For me it's just words. I have no problem with civil-unions for all (provided they are not treated differently as "marriages").

But you would have a problem with calling both civil marriage and religious marriage simply all the same “marriage”?
Why?
What is the marriage of people who marry without religious ceremony called today? Are they not “married”?

To those who by all means want to drag Islam (or even Islamic nations) into this:
1. I did not mention in my OP that I was starting a comparitive study. You can always make a thread of your own if you want discussion the issue in such a context.
2. Like it or not, but the US culture has its roots in Christianity and its culture, not in Islam. The fact that most of the Muslims in the USA would be in a sort of agreement the Christian standpoint can only have a marginal (if any, which I doubt) effect on the way SSM is looked at when comparing this with the problem the Christian opposition forms for the homosexual community in the USA.
Suppose it were only Muslims in the USA who were against SSM: How much reporting on that would be done and how much influence would this Muslim opposition have on the general mindset in the USA, compared with the attention the Christian opponents get now?
With only Muslims opposing SSM, would you even see SSM become one of the issues taken into account by the electorate? Excuse me, but I don’t believe in fairy tales.

Salaam. A

[GomiBoy]

I'll ignore most of this, as it didn't seem to be in response to me and I don't want to get into a religious or Anti-Bush thread (again :rolleyes: )

No, that was what I referred to in the OP = explained in an other thread, and in my view this habit is one of the main causes for this whole issue in the USA.
But you would have a problem with calling both civil marriage and religious marriage simply all the same “marriage”?
Why?
What is the marriage of people who marry without religious ceremony called today? Are they not “married”?


Well, I personally don't really care who 'marries' whom, and as I am neither gay nor religious, I would have to go out on a bit of a limb, but I think it boils down to this:

Gay couples want to have legal marriage in every sense of the word. They (and many others) do not see marriage as a religeous institution, but instead as a statement of the love and devotion two people can share, regardless of sexuality or progeny. Add to this that not all states have 'common law' or civil marriages, so they also want access to the full legal benefits of marriage (health benefits, bereavement benefits, next of kin status, etc...)

Religious people and opponents of SSM see it as a corruption of the holy institution of marriage, which to their mind exists only as a man + woman, for the purposes of creating and supporting progeny, and is a ceremony ordained by God (or Allah or Yahweh or whoever). Of course, a minority of them (IMO) also just hate gays and want to be cruel to them, and that I can't and won't comment on.

As for the terminology of someone who is 'married,' this too is a legal status, and has naught to do with the ceremony performed. Marriage is a legal state, which incurs certain benefits (as mentioned above). Someone who has a civil ceremony to wed their partner is 'married' in the eyes of the law, and if that marriage is legal in one state it is legal in all 50 states, and by treaty, in most of the countries in the world.

Now, one of the problems comes from the fact that many states, by not supporting common law or civil marriages, have allowed some pretty horrific things to happen, such as gay partners not being able to see their dying loved ones because they are not a 'family member' in the eyes of the law. Or not being able to be in someone's will for the same reason. So the gay couples in my opinion have a legitimate beef.

Sorry if I have added confusion, and I hope things are a bit more clear, but it's a pretty convoluted issue, really.

[Marley23]

[quote]And I didn't say I wasn't religious, I said I don't hold to a particular religion.
That's a nice illustration of why it's not necessary to mention a specific religion to violate the Establishment Clause.

I'm not sure it's relevant to the discussion but attendance of a ceremony is NOT mandatory to get a degree. I had my college degree mailed to me because I didn't want to snore through a bunch of crap.
High schools and colleges take different attitudes toward these sorts of things. Attendance at my high school graduation was very much mandatory.

[Homebrew]

Gay couples want to have legal marriage in every sense of the word. They (and many others) do not see marriage as a religeous institution, ...

Religious people ... see it as a corruption of the holy institution of marriage, ...
Many homosexuals are religious and do want to be part of the "Holy" institution. Furthermore a slowly growning number of churches do recognize that Gay folks can be just as married as straight folks.

[Polycarp]

Aldebaran, thanks very much for the answer, with which I pretty much agree in toto. I do tend to get a trifle judgmental when someone starts in throwing terminology around -- I ought to have known better. My apologies.

Many homosexuals are religious and do want to be part of the "Holy" institution. Furthermore a slowly growning number of churches do recognize that Gay folks can be just as married as straight folks.

And some churches -- few yet but growing -- believe that it's our responsibility before Christ to bless in His name the love that brings two people together, without attempting to classify and categorize it as humans are wont to do.

I think I have a handle on the love that you and your wife shared -- and while your sexuality and hers wouldn't make that work as a marriage, it was quite real. And I sincerely hope that you find a husband whom you can love unreservedly -- and that you'll someday find a church that will honor that love and recognize it.

[GomiBoy]

Many homosexuals are religious and do want to be part of the "Holy" institution. Furthermore a slowly growning number of churches do recognize that Gay folks can be just as married as straight folks.

Fair point. I guess most of the gay folks I know are pretty anti-religious because they are kind of pissed off about how most religions see them, although I fully admit it's not a representative sample. And I also see your point about many many churches liberalizing their stance towards homosexuality.

[Polycarp]

Fair point. I guess most of the gay folks I know are pretty anti-religious because they are kind of pissed off about how most religions see them, although I fully admit it's not a representative sample. And I also see your point about many many churches liberalizing their stance towards homosexuality.

Hmmm... of the ones I'm personally acquainted with, IRL or via the Internet:

Christian gay men -- 7
Gay men alienated from Christian churches but believing in God -- 3
Gay men atheist but with respect and insight into Christian tradition -- 2
Neopagan gay men -- 4
Atheist presumably anti-Christian gay men -- 3
Christian gay women -- 5
Neopagan gay woman -- 1
Atheist gay women -- 2

Granted my sample is slightly skewed by the fact that I myself am openly a liberal, gay-affirming Christian, I think it's anecdotally evidentiary that belief and gay sexuality are by no means incompossible.

[jayjay]

Hmmm... of the ones I'm personally acquainted with, IRL or via the Internet:

Christian gay men -- 7
Gay men alienated from Christian churches but believing in God -- 3
Gay men atheist but with respect and insight into Christian tradition -- 2
Neopagan gay men -- 4
Atheist presumably anti-Christian gay men -- 3
Christian gay women -- 5
Neopagan gay woman -- 1
Atheist gay women -- 2

Granted my sample is slightly skewed by the fact that I myself am openly a liberal, gay-affirming Christian, I think it's anecdotally evidentiary that belief and gay sexuality are by no means incompossible.

Incidentally, Poly, which category did you have me in? My spiritual focus has fluctuated a few times since the last time I ever actually explicitly said anything detailed about my beliefs, so I just want to make sure I'm in the right box. :D

[GomiBoy]

Hmmm... of the ones I'm personally acquainted with, IRL or via the Internet:

Christian gay men -- 7
Gay men alienated from Christian churches but believing in God -- 3
Gay men atheist but with respect and insight into Christian tradition -- 2
Neopagan gay men -- 4
Atheist presumably anti-Christian gay men -- 3
Christian gay women -- 5
Neopagan gay woman -- 1
Atheist gay women -- 2

Granted my sample is slightly skewed by the fact that I myself am openly a liberal, gay-affirming Christian, I think it's anecdotally evidentiary that belief and gay sexuality are by no means incompossible.

I take your point; I never said they were incompatible, just to my mind kind of unlikely seeing as how so many religious leaders from various faiths openly and loudly decry homosexuality as a sin.

[Polycarp]

Incidentally, Poly, which category did you have me in? My spiritual focus has fluctuated a few times since the last time I ever actually explicitly said anything detailed about my beliefs, so I just want to make sure I'm in the right box. :D

With effort, I'm avoiding the horrible double-entendre available for punning in that post.

I placed you in category #2, based on the last few Pizza Parlor posts you made that I read and the rare occasions you've mentioned your spirituality here, thinking you were probably there but might be in #1.



Apropos nothing generally, but fitting the context of this thread, it would not be irenic but would be just for gay people and their supporters to regard the marriages of people who deny the validity of gay marriage on Christian grounds as themselves invalid -- giving them a piece of Matthew 7:1-2, which they claim to believe is God's Word.

[jayjay]

With effort, I'm avoiding the horrible double-entendre available for punning in that post.

:D



I placed you in category #2, based on the last few Pizza Parlor posts you made that I read and the rare occasions you've mentioned your spirituality here, thinking you were probably there but might be in #1.


Well, that was over a year ago that I last posted over there. I've kind of swung back into agnosticism again. The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure of anything. :cool:

[BwanaBob]

But you would have a problem with calling both civil marriage and religious marriage simply all the same “marriage”?
Why?
What is the marriage of people who marry without religious ceremony called today? Are they not “married”?

Salaam. A

Through common use, the term "marriage" has taken on a broader meaning. But that doesn't mean it should continue to do so.

I refer to religious "civil" unions as "marriage". It gets to "own" the term because it was the "original" union.

non-religious "civil" unions are just civil unions.

Both should be protected and receive same federal tax benefits.

[New Iskander]

To those who by all means want to drag Islam (or even Islamic nations) into this:
1. I did not mention in my OP that I was starting a comparitive study. You can always make a thread of your own if you want discussion the issue in such a context...My apologies, I thought I was talking to Aldebaran, the Islamic scholar, while apparently I was addressing an alien creature from Aldebaran star system, completely new to the ways of planet Earth.

Talking to Aldebaran, the Islamic scholar, I'd say, "Why pretend you to know nothing about bigotry and religious hate, coming from culture where the calls to throw gays from tall buildings are sounded in the mosques all the time? Shouldn't you rather inquire after how many Christian ministers find it in their hearts to embrace and support gay people?"

Talking to a creature from Aldebaran star system, I'd say, "Yes, what you observe is true, many Christians still hate gays and discriminate against them. In that, many Christians still have a lot in common with followers of other religions. Once you travel to Muslim lands, you will observe that the calls to throw gays from tall buildings are sounded in the mosques all the time..."

Feel better now?

[Homebrew]

I refer to religious "civil" unions as "marriage". It gets to "own" the term because it was the "original" union.Not really. All that was required for marriage for most of Western history was for two people to live together and declare that they were married. Using the Old Testament as an example, all that was required for marriage was the father of the girl to consent to the man asking and it was a done deal. No priest no religion. The Christian Church did not even have rites for marriage until about the ninth century, where were simply a blessing done after the marriage had been declared. It wasn't a sacrament until 1493. Priests weren't required for another 70 years. In Protestant England, Lord Hardwick’s Marriage Act of 1753 formalized and standardized marriage but form the most part poor people had common law marriages instead of more expensive, formal church weddings.

Here's an interesting open letter (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html) from a Tufts University historian to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney concering the history of same-sex marriage.