Prop 8 in California

lilithu said:

So..... everyone has to agree with your view completely or else they're bigots?

Marriage equality was NEVER about forcing churches to marry same-sex couples if they didn't want to. It's about securing the same legal rights for same-sex couples as hetero-couples. But statements like that above reinforce the idea that marriage equality advocates want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Click to expand...

I don't think so - I think it's worth considering whether the desire for one's church to discriminate against same sex couples comes from exactly the same place as the desire for one's state or federal government to discriminate against same sex couples. It may be a weaker version of the same sentiment, but it isn't an entirely different sentiment, is it?

However, allowing people to limit the impact of their antipathy toward homosexuals to the confines of their religious practice is a win-win situation for everybody, so I don't object to it. Same sex couples are not likely to belong to a church that considers their relationship less sacred than opposite couples anyway, and there are other churches that don't discriminate they (and their friends and families) could belong to if they chose, which will swell the membership of these churches (to the detriment of less liberal churches.)

What do you think is the difference between not wanting your church to sanctify the covenant of marriage between two people of the same sex and not wanting the state to do so?

Alceste said:

What do you think is the difference between not wanting your church to sanctify the covenant of marriage between two people of the same sex and not wanting the state to do so?

Click to expand...

The difference is you having the right to practice your own beliefs versus you imposing your beliefs on other people. The difference is huge.

Watchmen said:

What wonderful generalizations you've made.

Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint. It's jut my opinion. I have asked for some non religious reason for not allowing them to get married. What I've seen is the aversion to their lifestyle but so far I've heard nothing that would jeopardize the lifestyle of heterosexuals.

Setting aside religious views....will allowing them to marry be a hardship on our current failing economy? I mean what is it about allowing them to marry that's so bad?

When I normally ask the question without telling people to set aside their religious views....I'm presented with... "the bible says...."......"Paul says in...."......"It goes against God".......etc...

So I think in a lot of ways the term "bigot" fits. I mean when I look the word up at Dictionary.com it seems to fit them perfectly. Again, IMO

Watchmen said:

That's exactly what it is in California per State law.

Click to expand...

And my argument is not for California alone. I'm referring to ALL states and the civil union rights be 100% of what a traditional marriage is. As of now I don't think all states even recognize a civil union.

lilithu said:

The difference is you having the right to practice your own beliefs versus you imposing your beliefs on other people. The difference is huge.

Click to expand...

You don't feel that imposing your belief that same sex marriages are not as sacred as opposite sex marriages on all the other members of your religion (some of whom are bound to be gay) is similar to imposing your belief through the state? I do, but, as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with people imposing their bigotry on others in their own religious community, since belonging to a religious community is optional. There's no "opting out" of the influence of the state, so bigotry imposed via the state is far more oppressive.

Dirty Penguin said:

Sorry to disappoint. It's jut my opinion. I have asked for some non religious reason for not allowing them to get married. What I've seen is the aversion to their lifestyle but so far I've heard nothing that would jeopardize the lifestyle of heterosexuals.

Setting aside religious views....will allowing them to marry be a hardship on our current failing economy? I mean what is it about allowing them to marry that's so bad?

When I normally ask the question without telling people to set aside their religious views....I'm presented with... "the bible says...."......"Paul says in...."......"It goes against God".......etc...

So I think in a lot of ways the term "bigot" fits. I mean when I look the word up at Dictionary.com it seems to fit them perfectly. Again, IMO

Click to expand...

Well, IMO, you're a bigot too then.

And my argument is not for California alone. I'm referring to ALL states and the civil union rights be 100% of what a traditional marriage is. As of now I don't think all states even recognize a civil union.

Click to expand...

Good for you and your argument, but this is a Prop 8 thread, specific to California.

Alceste said:

You don't feel that imposing your belief that same sex marriages are not as sacred as opposite sex marriages on all the other members of your religion (some of whom are bound to be gay) is similar to imposing your belief through the state?

Click to expand...

No, I don't. A religion is a community of which not everyone in the state is a part. It is to some extent a voluntary association, tho that doesn't mean you just leave whenever there's a disagreement. (True community requires commitment.) And it isn't just "you" imposing your beliefs on others; it's the tenets of the religion - of the community.

By your argument, no religion is allowed to hold any beliefs whatsoever because there will always be someone who disagrees. In UU churches we believe that same sex-marriages are as equally sacred as hetero-marriages, and we say so. Are we imposing our beliefs on those among us who might not agree with that?

There are people who would have been fine with civil equality but are afraid that certain marriage equality advocates would not stop with that. That they would ultimately force churches with more traditional views of marriage to accept same-sex marriages within their doors. And you are showing them that their fears are justified. If you believe in true tolerance, then you have to accept that some people do not believe the same way that you do. You even accept what you perceive to be intolerant views, because if you don't, then you become intolerant of diverse views yourself. The only thing we don't accept is the imposition of such beliefs in the public/civil arena. It's common sense.

The thing is if you are a member of a church..it doesnt mean all members have beliefs "imposed " on them...you dont have to believe what you dont want to believe..Also as Lilith mentioned joining a church is voluntary...

Most church's you go to are going to have some ideas or practices or 'beliefs" you dont agree with.

Most people who know me are going to probably fall of their rocker over this..The church that I have attended most frequently in the recent past?..Does not believe women should be "ordained ministers" that teach over men.. (they have 6 pastors...all men)....

I do not agree with that..BUT there are so many other things I like about this church...I would not try to "force them" to let women teach..It doesnt mean I agree with them..I can find a church..within a block most likely..that has a woman as the lead Pastor..In fact the church I was a member of about 8 years ago ..hired a woman as the head pastor..a pregnant one at that! LOL!!!

Love

Dallas

DallasApple said:

The thing is if you are a member of a church..it doesnt mean all members have beliefs "imposed " on them...you dont have to believe what you dont want to believe..Also as Lilith mentioned joining a church is voluntary...

Click to expand...

Actually I mentioned it first. Lilithu seems to be pretending I didn't in order to construct herself a straw man to debate with.

Most church's you go to are going to have some ideas or practices or 'beliefs" you dont agree with.

Click to expand...

No kidding! That's why I don't go to church.

Most people who know me are going to probably fall of their rocker over this..The church that I have attended most frequently in the recent past?..Does not believe women should be "ordained ministers" that teach over men.. (they have 6 pastors...all men)....

I do not agree with that..BUT there are so many other things I like about this church...I would not try to "force them" to let women teach..It doesnt mean I agree with them..I can find a church..within a block most likely..that has a woman as the lead Pastor..In fact the church I was a member of about 8 years ago ..hired a woman as the head pastor..a pregnant one at that! LOL!!!

Love

Dallas

Click to expand...

That's a similar example, and a good one. Just as there are people who think women should not have a voice in religion, there are some who also think women should not have a voice in government. It's sexism in church, and it's sexism in the state. It doesn't get to be something other than sexism just because religious people are doing it through voluntary association with a sexist church.

Anti-gay sentiment is the same. It doesn't stop being anti-gay sentiment just because it happens in church.

But, as I've already said a few times, I don't have any problem with people who confine their anti-gay, sexist influence to their religion, since membership is voluntary (in western countries).

Alceste said:

Actually I mentioned it first. Lilithu seems to be pretending I didn't in order to construct herself a straw man to debate with.

Click to expand...

Oh please. The voluntary nature of church has nothing to do with our disagreement and you know it. Talk about constructing a straw man. And you are the one who started this particular debate in post #432.

Alceste said:

Isn't it active antipathy against BGLT no matter which way you slice it? Either they voted for prop 8 because they think "homosexuality is an abomination, therefore homosexual unions should not be socially acceptable at all", or because they think "homosexuality is an abomination, therefore I don't want my church performing homosexual weddings".

Click to expand...

lilithu said:

Oh please. The voluntary nature of church has nothing to do with our disagreement and you know it.

Click to expand...

It seems to me our disagreement rests on your refusal to consider the possibility that bigotry limited to a religious community might still be bigotry.

Alceste said:

It seems to me our disagreement rests on your refusal to consider the possibility that bigotry limited to a religious community might still be bigotry.

Click to expand...

No, it rests on your refusal to consider that true tolerance of diversity means tolerance even of views with which you don't agree.

lilithu said:

No, it rests on your refusal to consider that true tolerance of diversity means tolerance even of views with which you don't agree.

Click to expand...

Which view do you think I don't tolerate? I mentioned a few times I don't have any problem with bigoted religions because membership is voluntary. (I would add also as long as it stays inside the church and is non-abusive).

Alceste said:

Which view do you think I don't tolerate? I mentioned a few times I don't have any problem with bigoted religions because membership is voluntary. (I would add also as long as it stays inside the church and is non-abusive).

Click to expand...

And yet you argue with me when I say there's a difference between what goes on inside a church and what is taken into the public domain.

lilithu said:

And yet you argue with me when I say there's a difference between what goes on inside a church and what is taken into the public domain.

Click to expand...

Actually, I said the sentiment that same sex couples should not be treated as equal to opposite sex couples comes from the same place whether it's limited to a religion or expanded to the state. (And it takes two to argue, lady).

Alceste said:

Actually, I said the sentiment that same sex couples should not be treated as equal to opposite sex couples comes from the same place whether it's limited to a religion or expanded to the state. (And it takes two to argue, lady).

Click to expand...

Whatever lady. You argue sentiment. I'll focus on the actual rights. BOTH the rights of BGLT folks to not have someone's religious beliefs imposed upon them AND the rights of religious folks (and everyone else) to believe as they believe.

lilithu said:

Whatever lady. You argue sentiment. I'll focus on the actual rights. BOTH the rights of BGLT folks to not have someone's religious beliefs imposed upon them AND the rights of religious folks (and everyone else) to believe as they believe.

Click to expand...

That's not what the statement I was responding to implied:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1331995-post431.html

I am wrestling with how much of the vote is due to ignorance on the law as opposed to active antipathy against BGLT.

Click to expand...

Is active antipathy against BGLT a "sentiment" or a "right"?

IMO, it's both. We have the right to be bigots. Bigotry is a sentiment.

Alceste said:

That's not what the statement I was responding to implied:

Is active antipathy against BGLT a "sentiment" or a "right"?
IMO, it's both. We have the right to be bigots. Bigotry is a sentiment.

Click to expand...

Believing that marriage is a religious sacrament, given from God and defined as being between a man and a woman does not automatically make one actively antipathetic to BGLT folks.

As I've said repeatedly, I am more interested in securing rights and equality under the law. If people voted yes on 8, not because they dislike BGLT folks, but because they were afraid that their churches would be forced to do something against their beliefs, then I want to know that so that we can address this erroneous fear. You wanting to call them bigots simply validates that fear. It might make you feel better, but that's about all that it accomplishes.

jonny said:

Good. I actually opposed that until I saw the ads against the LDS Church that the 'no on 8' people were running. If they want to make it personal, go right ahead. I hope they can never get married.

Click to expand...

I just want to apologize to anyone who was hurt by this for saying it. I really didn't mean it and it was out of a lot of frustration.

jonny said:

I just want to apologize to anyone who was hurt by this for saying it. I really didn't mean it and it was out of a lot of frustration.

Click to expand...

Thank you, jonny.

lilithu said:

How many voters do you think understand this?

Click to expand...

A great many of them don't understand it, precisely because the Yes on 8 campaign lied about the implications. They deliberately misled people about the issues.

Watchmen said:

I can even get on board if they only wanted them to be joined in a civil union and not be classified as a "marriage".....but I would want that civil union to be equal in all aspects as a traditional marriage.

IMO....

Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is in California per State law.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Leaving aside the obvious differences that separate but equal is never equal, and that what California has are not "civil unions" but "domestic partnerships," experience has shown that partners in civil unions and domestic partnerships often have great difficulty getting employers and insurers to recognize their unions or partnerships.

Besides that, there are a number of statutory differences between marriage and domestic partnership in California; for instance, spouses are eligible for benefits under the state retirement plan, but domestic partners aren't.