Oops, sorry… yes, you’re correct of course, and this is why Der Trihs (and to some extent Diogenes the Cynic and that pseudotron guy and some others) are frequent embarrassments to us saner SDMB atheists because they insist on being polarizing rather than convincing.
My own approach to the issue of gay marriage would involve all efforts to reassure those currently in hetero marriages that their relationships will not be altered one iota, hence none of this “all marriages should be civil unions” crap. I recognize that most of the voters are fairly indifferent so I’d try to avoid giving them anything that might case them to reflexively dig their heels in.
This. In short, people should mind their own business and not try to to force their own brand of religion down someone else’s throat.
As someone like Bill Maher might say (and actually did during his “eulogy” of Falwell), stop name dropping God all over the place and stop dressing up intolerance as a religion. Just because one person believes something or chooses to obey whatever religious ideas he has, does not mean everyone else has to. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM someone else’s brand.
Yup, and to point to places that have it and have not suffered one bit of ill effects because of it. Really, it is a tempest in a teapot, a no-brainer - gay marriage in actual practice has had zero downside, there is no reason not to enact it on the same terms as regular old hetero marriage.
Once people realize this after it is enacted, their reactions are predictable: a tiny minority on the lunatic fringe continue to oppose it; the vast majority cease to even notice it. Hell, even our Conservative government just yawned when they came into power and endorsed it after a token vote …
Those places which have not enacted it are, I would predict, going to seem increasingly anacronistic, out of touch. Eventually it will be just plain annoying, like those places which still have Sunday “blue laws”.
Water fountains? As in separate but equal fountains, one for whites and one for blacks? As in the white fountain was clean and worked properly, but the black fountain was filthy and didn’t work? That is how separate but equal really worked. They were separate, but they were NOT equal.
If “religion” or even “Christianity” were monolithic entities, then I would agree with you. I live in a very, very liberal town, and there are a bunch of denominations there that support gay rights 100%. They display rainbow flags, they hold rallies and marches for same-sex marriage, etc. There are many non-religious people who haven’t gone to nearly as much trouble to attempt a change in the status quo. Lumping them in with Fred Phelps because they all call themselves Christians is like saying that everyone in the US supported the war. Simply untrue. And the vast majority of the people here in the US were not willing to give up their citizenship because of it, but still did as much as they could to oppose it.
Is the goal to persuade, or infuriate? If the latter, such tactics are admirable, and very effective at moving a potential enemy to a committed enemy.
Who did more to move forward the cause of black equality, Malcolm X or MLK? Huey Newton or Thurgood Marshall? Who was more effective in changing the public mind about Viet Nam, Jane Fonda or Eugene McCarthy? The local pastor who marched in the demonstrations, or the raging Maoists who preached rage and broke windows?
Do you want to persuade the persuadable, and win, or are you more interested in preening your self-righteousness in public?
The cause of justice is winning this one, and that’s all to the good. But after we’ve won this one, there will be another, there always is. Whatever enmity and rancor we inspire this time, we will face next time. If you shit in the road on your way to market, you will encounter flies when you return. The going around, the coming around.
I’m willing to compromise, if need be. I’m also willing to swear up and down that this is it, give me this compromise, and I’ll go away and not bother you any more. Honest! I’m lying, of course, I fully intend to solidify the gains made, and turn right around and start renegotiating.
Willing to stifle my anger to advance progress? Sure. Willing to fib? Hugh Betcha. Willing to eat some shit? Here’s my spoon, here’s my grin.
“but, I don’t want to call it marriage” - Why not? You’ve apparently seen for yourself that it would cause no harm to you or someone else. So why?
“I don’t want government defining what a marriage is” - They already are. They already did. And, where is the logic? On the one hand you want government interference, by saying you don’t want marriage (which is defined and controlled by government) but then you don’t want government involved. I have to think you want it “both ways” then. Government definition and interference is OK as long as it doesn’t limit you, bt it’s OK when it limits someone else. Did you agree with the old Defense of Marriage Act? I’m going to guess you did, just a wild guess. Why, if you want government out of the marriage business?
It’s just the same old same old. It’s the old “we can control you but you don’t control me”. It’s a double standard.
Oddy, I just mentioned an example in the post immediately above yours - the Sunday “blue laws” which kept the non-religious and religious alike from shopping on Sunday.
And now, most of us realize how dumb it all was. Now, most of us realize it made no sense. But back then, people used to just shrug and say “that’s how it’s always been”. That’s one of the problems with the “marriage has always been this way”.
Ah, the blue laws. Most of the people I’ve known, thought such laws were ridiculous. Having a BBQ on Sunday? Sorry, can’t get your beer today (blue law). Blue laws were put in place to make sure people went to church (?) instead of barbecuing (not true, but silly enough to say). What about people who don’t go to church? What about Jews, who hold their services on Saturday? What about the catholic or protestant who’s already been to church and just wants to have a beer or two and burn some steaks?
It was/is a dumb law, instituted for religious purposes. I don’t consider it to be the dreaded Establishment Of Religion as such, but it had religious roots and was/is stupid unnecessary government interference.
How is heterosexual marriage patriarchal and mysoginistic? Why isn’t it Matriarchal? Women don’t want to get married they are just forced into it by men?
Tradition says the wife takes the husband’s name. That doesn’t always have to be the case and certainly isn’t written into law, but it is the norm and is undeniably patriarchal.
That’s the single biggest indicator I can think of that’s still strong today; most male-dominated traditions in marriage, such as the man working and the woman keeping house, are no longer expected nor the norm (that is, deviations from such aren’t considered odd).