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

[CRB]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

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.


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?

The "so what" is that it answered the previous question.

So you don't consider the redefinition of a cultural institution at all redefining culture?
But if you would, please be truthful. Don't act like the trolls. I'm willing to have dialogue with people who disagree with me and to do so in a civil manner. This is a big board with a lot of open discussion. There's no need to be mean about things by making up stuff.
I didn't say that it would interfere with anything.
And to the final point -- the difference is clear. As you yourself understand: One man, one woman.

SInce you bring that interracial point up, I think some clarification is needed. While I'm generally conservative, my politics come from my faith. That is, the whole of my world view and my view of society come from the Bible. With that in mind I would have supported the legalization of inter-ethnic marriage at the time. (I'm caucasian and when in college -- an evangelical Bible college -- dated a black gal. A sweet Christian girl.) As a result many of my opinions do fit into the liberal vein, but not entirely into either perspective.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogsp...manifesto.html

[CRB]

Originally Posted by lilithu

I am not sure who this is addressed to. You seem to be responding to my post but your response was tacked onto MaddLlama's post. It would greatly help avoid confusion if you could quote from the person to whom you are responding. Thanks.

There are some in this thread and in society who would insist that marriage be made available to all regardless of how churches feel about marriage. I recognize that. I think it stems from the impression of churches having imposed their views on society in general, and therefore there is antipathy towards churches and little motivation to take their concerns into account. That is not where I am coming from, and I know that I am not alone. Over and over again I have heard from people who, while insisting on BGLT equality, would be willing to achieve equality in a way that does not impinge upon the church's definition of marriage.

That was what my whole post was about. If marriage is religious, and I accept the view that it is, then it does not belong in the domain of the state. Wouldn't you agree? So I reiterate, if people want to "protect" the sanctity of marriage then they should be working to remove it from the civil domain. If they refuse to remove marriage from the civil domain, then marriage cannot be considered religious, and therefore there is no reason not open it to all people.

Any desire to "impinge" upon society is no more than the desire to achieve equality, which I'm told is an American societal value.

As long as you mean "a simple contract" for everyone, we are in agreement.

... about the responses. Yes, it does help. The threads do get confusing at time.
Marriage has a long history that existed in every culture, was generally religious, often a part of common law, but not really a contract by today's western legal standards.
If what is needed between two persons is a legal arrangement for managing benefits and if it can be done with no impact on the rights of others, that's sufficient for me, from a societal perspective. Those arrangements can be made to cover anyone and everyone equally.
There are two problems faced here -- lawyers and the current movement. There are still some who would co-opt marriage and there will always be lawyers wanting to make big bucks on everything. Those two factors will need to change before anything really practical can be accomplished.
Thank you for the civility of your discussion. I wish more were so accomodating.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by 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.)

*IF* you could ensure that the sex would not result in pregnancy--a pregnancy that would carry along with it a very high chance of birth defects for the child--then I find no reason, despite my own personal disgust at the action, for it to be punishable by the law, any moreso than it should be illegal for people to do anything that is culturally taboo, but practically harmless.

Originally Posted by CRB

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.)

I guess we started down this slippery slope when evangelicals lost their fight to stop inter-racial marriage, right? C'mon. The "slippery slope" argument is a well-known logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by CMB

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?

This is a topic for another thread. Do you think gay rights infringe on religious liberty?

*edit: Oops, sorry CMB, I didn't see your last two posts. It looks like from what you said that we agree entirely: "If what is needed between two persons is a legal arrangement for managing benefits and if it can be done with no impact on the rights of others, that's sufficient for me, from a societal perspective. Those arrangements can be made to cover anyone and everyone equally." The only minor point on which we may disagree is that I think the word the law recognizes for such arrangements should continue to be "marriage".

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by CRB

Whoa, now. Not all inequalities are illegal. But that's the direction of your statement.

I don't see how that follows from what I wrote.

Originally Posted by CRB

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.

You are comparing homosexuality with incest and beastiality and arguing slippery slope and that's BULL.

There are secular reasons - ie, reasons that do not rely on a subjective moral judgment - for why incest and beastiality are illegal. There is no good secular argument for why same-sex marriage is illegal. Precedent is a ridiculous argument for the reasons I gave above. Slippery slope is a ridiculous argument because it presupposes without any rational evidence that homosexuality is qualitatively similar to beastiality and incest.

[gmelrod]

Originally Posted by 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.

I had to think back to remember which episode of house had incest. It was a special situation where two kids who grew up next door to each other fell in love and eloped after the boy's father tried to angrily break them apart. I turned out that the boy and girl were half siblings. The boys father had an affair with the girl's mother. The son thought that the father did not want them to be together because the girl was black but it was actualy cause she was his sister. They did not know they were commiting incest. When they found out (because they both had the same genetic disorder) the girl was so disgusted that she could not be in the sight of her boyfriend/brother. This is hardly the writers promoting incest but a compelling twist on a well written show. The practical reason why incest is not allowed is because of the higher risk of birth defects.

There was a man in africa who was forced to marry a goat as a punishment because he had been having sex with it. The she goat died recently but the man is still responsible for his step son. The practical stopping point is when a person's actions harm others. And there is a distinciton between making somthing illegal and making somthing socialy unacceptable. Society has consequences for actions that it does not approve of which are seperate from questions of legality. Legaly we should allow people to be as free as possilble within the limits of preventing harm to others. I think this is a good standard by which these things can be judged. Though I do have others. Catagorical Imperative anyone?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by CRB

The "so what" is that it answered the previous question.

My apologies then.

Originally Posted by CRB

So you don't consider the redefinition of a cultural institution at all redefining culture?

And what 'cultural institution' are you claiming is being altered?
Marriage?
Marriage is a legal contract.
All the cultural/religious window dressing put upon it is just that, window dressing.

Originally Posted by CRB

But if you would, please be truthful. Don't act like the trolls. I'm willing to have dialogue with people who disagree with me and to do so in a civil manner. This is a big board with a lot of open discussion. There's no need to be mean about things by making up stuff.

and what, exactly, do you propose that i have made up?

Originally Posted by CRB

I didn't say that it would interfere with anything.
And to the final point -- the difference is clear. As you yourself understand: One man, one woman.

So it is a purely gender bias then?

Originally Posted by CRB

SInce you bring that interracial point up, I think some clarification is needed. While I'm generally conservative, my politics come from my faith. That is, the whole of my world view and my view of society come from the Bible. With that in mind I would have supported the legalization of inter-ethnic marriage at the time. (I'm caucasian and when in college -- an evangelical Bible college -- dated a black gal. A sweet Christian girl.) As a result many of my opinions do fit into the liberal vein, but not entirely into either perspective.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogsp...manifesto.html

The only reason I brought up inter-racial marriage is because the exact same arguments were used against it as are being used against same sex marriage.

[CRB]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

*IF* you could ensure that the sex would not result in pregnancy--a pregnancy that would carry along with it a very high chance of birth defects for the child--then I find no reason, despite my own personal disgust at the action, for it to be punishable by the law, any moreso than it should be illegal for people to do anything that is culturally taboo, but practically harmless.

I guess we started down this slippery slope when evangelicals lost their fight to stop inter-racial marriage, right? C'mon. The "slippery slope" argument is a well-known logical fallacy.

This is a topic for another thread. Do you think gay rights infringe on religious liberty?

*edit: Oops, sorry CMB, I didn't see your last two posts. It looks like from what you said that we agree entirely: "If what is needed between two persons is a legal arrangement for managing benefits and if it can be done with no impact on the rights of others, that's sufficient for me, from a societal perspective. Those arrangements can be made to cover anyone and everyone equally." The only minor point on which we may disagree is that I think the word the law recognizes for such arrangements should continue to be "marriage".

Thanks for the edit. I won't delve into our various point disagreements as discussing the many minutae will not resolve our differing core world views.
Yes, I think there is a secular solution so that "gay rights" don't have to infringe on relgious liberty. I do wish politicians were more thoughtful and less political.

[Sunstone]

***MOD POST***

Please stay on topic!