Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty? (homosexuality, marriage)

[CRB]

Marriage existed before the current contract status existed. It was both cultural and religious, often by common law. There are secular marriages. I've never denied that.
But let's get back to where we started:
The question was whether homosexual marriages would impinge on religious liberty. I addressed that point with a proof by putting a link into my earlier post. (I'm too new to simply add links directly, so you'll have to do a little reconstruction of the URL.)
There is a secular reason, and its used in law all the time: Precedence. We have a secular (not religiously defined) state but not a secular society. Because marriage is a state matter the states are free to manage the matter. To redefine culture is outside the bounds of law. That's a valid precedence. You may disagree, and that's ok.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by CRB

There is a secular reason, and its used in law all the time: Precedence. We have a secular (not religiously defined) state but not a secular society. Because marriage is a state matter the states are free to manage the matter. To redefine culture is outside the bounds of law. That's a valid precedence. You may disagree, and that's ok.

Not only do I disagree, I find it pathetic that you even think this argument is worth typing.

Slavery had precedence.
Denying women the right to vote had precedence.
Anti-miscegenation laws had precedence.
Laws against Catholics and Jews had precedence.

On the other side, there is PRECEDENCE for expanding the recognition of rights to more people when an inequity is recognized.

[CRB]

Whoa, now. Not all inequalities are illegal. But that's the direction of your statement.
Ever watch the US show House on Fox? (Fascinating show. Quite quirky.) In a recent episode the writers promoted the idea of sibiling sex being acceptable. Is that an inequality which should be made legal now? There is certainly no practical reason why not. (We're talking about sex, not necesssarily the resultant child-bearing situation.) And, yes, you can blame it all on religion. For the past decade+, evangelicals have discussed the slippery slope of allowing everything under the sun. (And not just allowing things passively but promoting and celebrating these things.) Sibling sex and polygamy/polyandry are now a part of the mainstream dialogue. We've gone that far, with no end in sight. (Like the woman in Israel who wed her dolphin -- but that was certainly extreme.)
So I ask you -- what if any is the practical, secular stopping point? Are there any social distinctions which should be deemed acceptable? (Or if I have $1 more than the rest, should that $1 be taken and redistributed?)
I look forward to your response. Enjoy.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by CRB

So I ask you -- what if any is the practical, secular stopping point? Are there any social distinctions which should be deemed acceptable?

Consent is the stopping point. That rules out marrying children or animals, who lack legal capacity to consent.

[Reverend Rick]

So things still remain unchanged. Who is suffering?

[CRB]

And what makes a 17-year-old in capable of consent? Or 16? Or 15? Other than the rulings of courts and legislators, nothing. It's a societal standard that defines the scope of consent, but not the essence of the term. That is, a child may give real consent but it's not currently legally binding. It is, none the less, real consent.
I didn't mention beastiality, but since you bring it up ... how do you know they don't enjoy it? Perhaps (form the evolutionary perspective) another primate is a suitable mate. There's no practical reason why not, if it's desired. And desire is the ultimate consent. (Graham Ward, Cities of God)

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by CRB

Marriage existed before the current contract status existed. It was both cultural and religious, often by common law. There are secular marriages. I've never denied that.

I am not trying to be rude, but so what?
We are not talking about ancient history, we are talking about current events.
How about the fact that back then marriage was not defined as between one man and one woman?
The fact of the matter is the whole one man/one woman definition is rather new itself.

Originally Posted by CRB

But let's get back to where we started:
The question was whether homosexual marriages would impinge on religious liberty. I addressed that point with a proof by putting a link into my earlier post. (I'm too new to simply add links directly, so you'll have to do a little reconstruction of the URL.)
There is a secular reason, and its used in law all the time: Precedence. We have a secular (not religiously defined) state but not a secular society. Because marriage is a state matter the states are free to manage the matter. To redefine culture is outside the bounds of law. That's a valid precedence. You may disagree, and that's ok.

And how, pray tell, is allowing same sex marriage 'redefining' culture?
Are you going to claim that same sex couples getting marriage is somehow interfering with hetero-marriages?
And did allowing inter-racial marriage redefine culture?
If so how and why was it allowed?
If not, what makes it different from same sex marriage?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by CRB

And what makes a 17-year-old in capable of consent? Or 16? Or 15? Other than the rulings of courts and legislators, nothing. It's a societal standard that defines the scope of consent, but not the essence of the term. That is, a child may give real consent but it's not currently legally binding. It is, none the less, real consent.
I didn't mention beastiality, but since you bring it up ... how do you know they don't enjoy it? Perhaps (form the evolutionary perspective) another primate is a suitable mate. There's no practical reason why not, if it's desired. And desire is the ultimate consent. (Graham Ward, Cities of God)

Funny.
You flat out asked specifically for a secular stopping point.
That stopping point is legal consent.
As far as giving real consent that is not legally binding, this is done on a case by case basis.
Take for instance the fact that there are several instances where minors can be held legally accountable for contracts in which they enter.

The "secular stopping point" is not the black and white situation you are trying to make it out to be.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

So things still remain unchanged. Who is suffering?

What are you talking about?
It can't be this ban on same sex marriage, because there are states that are allowing it and other states that will recognize it.
So the same sex marriage issue is changing, albeit slowly.

[CRB]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Funny.
You flat out asked specifically for a secular stopping point.
That stopping point is legal consent.
As far as giving real consent that is not legally binding, this is done on a case by case basis.
Take for instance the fact that there are several instances where minors can be held legally accountable for contracts in which they enter.

The "secular stopping point" is not the black and white situation you are trying to make it out to be.

I understand what you're saying. I'll be a little clear on the question.
Is it a necessary stopping point? That is, is there any reason why it must be a certain way?
I realize that it's not so b&w. But I also realize that the matter of practical or secular are presented as b&w choices to be accepted or rejected. And given that we're coming from varying world views, that's a choice I'm not willing to become party to. The whole of the conversation on the subject is bigger than this forum.