# Religious objections to Gay Marriage are a form of religious persecution, and invalid **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2009, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903 "2009-05-28T03:46:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/1 "2009-05-28T03:46:07Z")
To the people who object to Gay Marriage because of religion. Your objection is religious persecution. Cited below are several schools of religious belief that are proSSM. Why should you be able to force your religious beliefs on other people? (Wiki creative commons so quoting is kosher.) > **[Religious views on same-sex marriage | Religious support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_arguments_about_same-sex_marriage#Religious_support)** > > Due to the ambivalent language about homosexuality in Buddhist teachings, there has been no official stance put forth regarding the issue of marriage between members of the same gender. There is no official Buddhist position on the issue of same-sex marriage. > In 1997, the Dalai Lama said, "We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers, \[...\] From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct. \[...\] From society's viewpoint, mu... > [@](#): > > Some liberal Christians such as the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ and liberal congregations within the mainline denominations interpret the passage in Romans as relating to specific instances of Graeco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship lacking relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships.[28] > > Some Christians support religious and legal recognition of same-sex marriage based on a moral commitment to equality, or a belief that “human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God”, as affirmed by the United Church of Canada’s 37th General Council.[29] > > Several Christian denominations support same-sex marriage and perform same-sex weddings. The three largest are Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ (UCC). > > At the 1996 UU General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly that they would perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and the church has been performing weddings with and without state sanction ever since.[30][31] The United Church of Christ’s General Synod passed a resolution affirming “equal marriage rights for all people regardless of gender” in 2005. The church allows but does not require pastors to perform same-sex weddings.[32] > > The United Church of Canada was active in the campaign that led to legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Canada. The United Church now allows individual congregations to decide whether or not to perform these marriages.[33] Likewise, in the Protestant Church of the Netherlands, where same-sex marriages have been legal since 2001, individual congregations decide if they will perform them.[34] > > According to Daniel A. Helminiak,[35] the Bible may be interpreted literally or within historical-cultural context. Under a literalist reading, the Bible can be read as condemning homosexuality (and, by extension, gay marriage)[36] Read in cultural context, the Bible “was not addressing our current questions about sexual ethics and does not condemn gay sex [or gay marriage] as we understand it today.”[36]. Helminiak argues that Biblical passages said to be against homosexuality [and same-sex marriage] do not actually say anything against gay and lesbian sexual relationships or identity. “The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Jude condemns sex with angels, not sex between two men. Not a single Bible text indisputably refers to lesbian sex. […] there follows no valid conclusion whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical figures […] may well have been involved in homogenital relationships, seen as part of God’s plan. And Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when face to face with a man in a gay relationship.”[36] Lisa Miller also argues for a move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world unlike our own.[37][38] Monogamy, for example, only became the norm in the Christian world in the last 150 years or so.[39] However, Miller argues that the Bible supports the idea of monogamous relationships, including gay marriage.[40] > **[Religious views on same-sex marriage | Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_arguments_about_same-sex_marriage#Judaism)** > > Members of Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism support marriages for same-sex couples. The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis. > Native American religions traditionally accepted same-sex marriage.\[citation needed\] This often came in the form of a Two-Spirit identity in which the Indigenous peoples of the Americas would fulfill one of many mixed gender roles. > Neopagans are generally welcoming of LGBT people, and some strands celebrate gay relationships. ... > [@](#): > > Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.[43] The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.[44] > **[Religious views on same-sex marriage | Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_arguments_about_same-sex_marriage#Hinduism)** > > The conservative branches of Hinduism opposes homosexuality and are less supportive to gay rights. In the ancient Hindu text of Manusmriti, the act of homosexuality has been described as unclean and considered as a sin. Many Dharmaśāstra, describes such acts of having relations with "third genders" (or Hijra in modern term) as immoral actions and are considered as Sexual misconduct. > One source of controversy is how same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion. There is concern that religious c... > [@](#): > > There are both conservative and liberal views about homosexuality and same-sex marriage in Hinduism, similar to many other religions. A liberal view is presented by Mathematician Shakuntala Devi, in her 1977 book, The World of Homosexuals, in which she interviewed Srinivasa Raghavachariar, head priest of the Srirangam temple. He said that same-sex lovers must have been cross-sex lovers in a former life. The sex may change but the soul retains its attachments, hence the love impels these souls towards one another.[48] In 2002, Ruth Vanita (writer/reporter for GALVA - The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, Inc.) interviewed a Shaiva priest who performed the marriage of two women; he told me that, having studied Hindu scriptures, he had concluded, “Marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or female” (p. 147).[49] > > As Amara Das Wilhelm, a Krishna devotee and founder of GALVA, notes in his book, Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex, “several Gaudiya Vaishnava authorities emphasize that since everyone passes through various forms, genders and species in a series of lives, we should not judge each other by the material body but view everyone equally on a spiritual plane, and be compassionate as God is.”[50] > > According to Ruth Vanita, “Indian newspapers, over the last 25 years, have reported several same-sex weddings and same-sex joint suicides, mostly by Hindu female couples in small towns, unconnected to any gay movement. Several weddings took place by Hindu rites, with some family support, while the suicides resulted from families forcibly separating lovers.” According to Vanita, the phenomena of increased visibility of same-sex weddings "…suggest the wide range of Hindu attitudes to homosexuality today. The millennia-long debate in Hindu society, somewhat suppressed in the colonial period, has revived. In 2004, Hinduism Today reporter Rajiv Malik asked several Hindu swamis (teachers) their opinion of same-sex marriage. The swamis expressed a range of opinions, positive and negative. They felt free to differ with each other; this is evidence of the liveliness of the debate, made possible by the fact that Hinduism has no one hierarchy or leader. As Mahant Ram Puri remarked, “We do not have a rule book in Hinduism. We have a hundred million authorities.”[51] These are aside from Athiests and Agnostics who also have views on marriage that are SSM friendly. The Bill of Rights ensures a separation of Church and State. Religious objection to SSM goes against American law, liberty, and the very Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/2 "2009-05-28T03:58:38Z")
I am all for SSM. That said not sure what this shows except that some religious groups are ok with SSM. I don’t see why that helps anything. These things are always about a difference of opinion. Elsewhere on this Board we have shown (or rather no one has shown otherwise) that there is no rational reason to oppose SSM unless “rational” can be equated to a belief. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/3 "2009-05-28T04:38:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am all for SSM. > > That said not sure what this shows except that some religious groups are ok with SSM. > > I don’t see why that helps anything. These things are always about a difference of opinion. Elsewhere on this Board we have shown (or rather no one has shown otherwise) that there is no rational reason to oppose SSM unless “rational” can be equated to a belief. Well it makes it a Constitutional issue. If marriage is a religious issue and some people believe in SSM then the government’s ban on SSM is the government “respecting an establishment of religion”, and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” for others. The SSM ban is no different than a law saying everyone must attend church on tuesday. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/4 "2009-05-28T05:35:26Z")
I’m not sure what you think the point of this thread might be. There are fewer than a handful of posters who have ever opposed SSM based on their religious beliefs and not one of those posters is particularly deft at debate. You’d be better off starting this thread (politely) on an actual religion-based message board. This is liable to be little better than a fact-free, logic-free pile-on that gets shut down or moved to the **Pit**. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/5 "2009-05-28T05:43:08Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > If marriage is a religious issue Except it isn’t. The state isn’t interested in the religious aspects of marriage at all. (note, I am not saying that this debate isn’t based in religion, it’s just that the marriage we’re talking about here is unrelated to religious marriage) They don’t care to have your local Archdiocese sign off on your divorce from your Catholic spouse, they don’t care if said Archdiocese won’t recognize your remarriage, they don’t care if you think you got married at the local Zoroastrian ceremony if you didn’t apply and pay for a marriage license (excepting common law marriage!) ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/6 "2009-05-28T06:24:54Z")
No, no, no. Religious persecution is the persecution of people for practising their religion. The motives of the persecutor – whether they be religious or secular – are irrelevant. Stalin, for example, engaged in religious persecution out of secular convictions. Consequently I think your argument is that, because SSM is endorsed by certain religious groups, _anybody_ who objects to SSM and seeks to exclude it by law is engaged in religious persecution, not just those who are motivated to do this by their own religious views. But does your argument apply to SSM only? If your argument is correct, then if _any_ practice is endorsed or mandated by a religious group, attempts to suppress it by law constitute “religious persecution”. But apply that argument to, say, child marriages or _sutee_ and it starts to look a little thin. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/7 "2009-05-28T07:38:59Z")
“Oh, now he’s equating homosexuality with child abuse and widow-burning!”. :mad: (Thought I’d get that in before anyone else did.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/8 "2009-05-28T12:01:25Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Well it makes it a Constitutional issue. If marriage is a religious issue and some people believe in SSM then the government’s ban on SSM is the government “respecting an establishment of religion”, and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” for others. And if marriage is a religious issue and some people do not believe in SSM, then the government’s endorsement of SSM is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion and establishing the religion of others. It cuts both ways. One of the reasons for the separation of church and state is to prevent the state from interfering in religious practice and belief. The government does not get to favor one religious belief over another. All these kinds of arguments have to be resolved on secular terms only. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/9 "2009-05-28T12:42:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And if marriage is a religious issue and some people do not believe in SSM, then the government’s endorsement of SSM is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion and establishing the religion of others. It cuts both ways. > Regards, > Shodan Marriage is only a religious issue to some. As an atheist, it most certainly isn’t a religious issue to me. What’s more, government legalisation of SSM does not prohibit opponents from the free exercise of their religion. They don’t have to have a SSM. As a muslim, your religion would prevent you from drinking alcohol or borrowing or lending money. That doesn’t stop the government making it legal in defiance of your faith. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/10 "2009-05-28T12:53:19Z")
Yeah, if your religion _only_ recognized SSM, then shouldn’t the government by all rights prohibit heteromarriage? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/11 "2009-05-28T13:28:17Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Yeah, if your religion _only_ recognized SSM, then shouldn’t the government by all rights prohibit heteromarriage? Exactly! Saying marriage is in “the providence of religion” means the government can’t take one side or the other. Simply because if this is true then by the First Amendment it has to either recognize all types of marriage, including SSM, or none at all. Anything less is pure discrimination and government sanctioned persecution. Now the government isn’t going to get rid of hetromarriage. It just isn’t politically feasible. So inline with the Constitution it must recognize all kinds of marriage. Now if you want to say it isn’t a religious issue then okay, but anyone saying Marriage is religiously defined and prohibits SSM doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s a bad argument, just like a law saying you should be forced to attend church on tuesday and worship Ba’al would be. Anyone who wouldn’t support the Ba’al law but makes a religious argument against SSM being legalized is a hypocrite at best. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/12 "2009-05-28T13:34:54Z")
**Tao’s Revenge** , the First Amendment permits the restriction of religious practice by the state, but forbids the restriction of religious belief. A restriction can’t be based on animosity towards the religion, however. For example (simplification time), ritual slaughter of animals can be prohibited. What you cannot do, for example, is pass a law that prevents halal meat being produced but allows kosher meat to be produced. You cannot prevent prisoners from believing that filet mignon is a sacrament, and they are going to hell if they do not eat it once a week (actual case). But that does not mean you are required as a prison to feed the prisoner who professes such belief filet mignon once a week. To take it to the ultimate extreme, you can’t be prevented from believing that absent the sacrifice of a virgin, the winter will never end. But if you go ahead and knife your neighbor’s 8 year old daughter, you are going to do some serious time. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/13 "2009-05-28T13:37:56Z")
I don’t think you need to restrict the argument to SSM. Any discrimination stemming from the belief that gay is sin is tantamount to religious persecution. One religion says homosexuality is sinful. Another doesn’t. I believe homosexuality is a de facto religion. Anyone being fired ‘for being gay’ is the same to me as someone being fired ‘for being Jewish.’ Of course the gays and lesbians in charge don’t actually pursue this line of argument since religion is a CHOICE and sexual orientation is not. Which, upon inspection, is ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/14 "2009-05-28T14:06:47Z")
The Old Testament famously prohibits theft and murder. By the OP’s logic, secular laws against theft and murder are a form of religious persecution equivalent to mandatory church attendance. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/15 "2009-05-28T14:07:02Z")
> [@villa](#): > > For example (simplification time), ritual slaughter of animals can be prohibited. What you cannot do, for example, is pass a law that prevents halal meat being produced but allows kosher meat to be produced. So how is straight vs gay marriage different then halal vs kosher? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/16 "2009-05-28T14:18:20Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So how is straight vs gay marriage different then halal vs kosher? I honestly don’t understand what you are asking here. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/17 "2009-05-28T14:22:41Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I honestly don’t understand what you are asking here. I gather he’s asking why one form of religious expression (hetero marriage) is permitted why another (gay marriage) is not. Assuming, of course, that marriage is a religious concept. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/18 "2009-05-28T14:22:54Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The Old Testament famously prohibits theft and murder. By the OP’s logic, secular laws against theft and murder are a form of religious persecution equivalent to mandatory church attendance. Specifically in a follow up post: > [@me earlier](#): > > Simply because if this is true then by the First Amendment it has to either recognize all types of marriage, including SSM, or none at all. If you reread my OP you’ll note I’m addressing the idea that marriage should be religiously defined. Secular state marriage is outside the scope of this debate. What we’re looking at is the idea that marriage “should be the providence of religion” as a few posters here put fourth. Such an idea is fatally flawed when marriage is recognized by the government. Your argument makes sense from the context of marriage not being a religious thing because the government bans theft and murder regardless of religion. If it banned murder with the exception of old testament stonings for adultery then it’s be like the current system, assuming the premise we’re debating in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/19 "2009-05-28T14:24:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I gather he’s asking why one form of religious expression (hetero marriage) is permitted why another (gay marriage) is not. > > Assuming, of course, that marriage is a religious concept. Exactly! Thank you:) ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903/20 "2009-05-28T14:34:28Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Exactly! Thank you:) Your quote asked and answered your question for you. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-objections-to-gay-marriage-are-a-form-of-religious-persecution-and-invalid/497903.md?page=2)