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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.”
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.
Yes, but all distinct from the background from which the “religious” look at the issue and defend their objections.
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
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
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
I don’t think one has to cite that exit poll. I know this is the Washington Post, 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.
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.
