Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom...Opinions?

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by iagainsti, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. iagainsti
    Offline

    iagainsti Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    93
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +21
    Anyone who lives in California or followed or was actively a part of the debate over Prop 8 will remember this...

    Those in support of Prop 8 (meaning: against gay marriage) had signs they would post in their yards or carry during rallies, as did those against Prop 8 (meaning: for gay marriage). The ones in support of Prop 8 said things like "Prop 8 = Parental Rights," "Prop 8 = Less Government," and (although neither of those made much sense to me) the one I found most perplexing:

    "Prop 8 = Religious Freedom."

    Okay. So, as far as I understand, religious freedom means being able to freely practice your religion without interference from other groups or from the government. It means there should be no "state religion" to discourage the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose, or any laws in place to prevent the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

    So, in my opinion, Prop 8 is/was the OPPOSITE of religious freedom.

    Answer me this: in what way would gay marriage impose on the right of Christians (and other religions that oppose homosexuality) to freely practice their religion?

    Also: wouldn't putting Christian ideals about homosexuality and marriage into the law impose on the religious freedom of homosexuals who are NOT Christian?

    Opinions?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    It doesn't, it's just they need something to create fear in those who are naive.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. trueblue
    Offline

    trueblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    I think the concern of many of those in support of proposition 8 is that acceptance of homosexual marriage would change the makeup of society such that, for example, children would have to learn in school that gay marriage was normal. In this way, and other similar examples, they would argue that religion (or non-religion) is imposed upon them by the government.

    However, those in favor of gay marriage argue exactly as you have done-- that preventing gay marriage is imposing on their right to freedom of religion.

    To which those opposed to gay marriage would argue that marriage in itself is not a religion, though marriage is traditionally tied to religion. They would argue further that while no religion is strictly banned, religious practices damaging to society (such as polygamy or human sacrifices) have been prohibited.

    Then those in favor of gay marriage argue that gay marriage is not detrimental to society.

    Those against homosexual marriage then strongly disagree.

    And now you've got a stalemate for the courts.
     
  4. iagainsti
    Offline

    iagainsti Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    93
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +21
    Yes, I've heard that argument before...

    In California, children would not have to learn about gay marriage in school. They don't have to learn about any kind of marriage in school because there are already so many different types of families without even throwing same-sex parents into the mix - single parents, divorced parents, divorced parents and step-parents, kids living with aunts and uncles or grandparents or family friends - that they are afraid of alienating kids who don't come from the standard two-parent household.

    But, when they put that ad on TV with the couple from Massachusetts who hadn't been able to prevent their kid from learning about gay marriage in school because gay marriage was legal there, everyone got into an uproar about protecting the kids. Unfortunately, no one seemed to realize that the reality is that - shock of all shocks - education laws in Massachusetts and California are NOT THE SAME!

    So then the California Superintendent of Schools went on TV saying that, actually, kids in California would NOT have to learn about gay marriage, that California law doesn't require schools to teach kids about marriage and family. But then the opposition came right back with an ad hominem attack against the Superintendent saying that, since he had lied about something else once upon a time, no one should believe him about this. For some reason, no one recognized it as an ad hominem (maybe because it fit their agenda?) so the uproar about protecting the children continued.

    So do you agree or disagree that it does?
     
  5. trueblue
    Offline

    trueblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    144
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    This is a tough one. It seems to me like someone will have to concede some degree of their freedom of religion-- and it's tough to objectively say who that should be.

    I side with the school of thought that believes homosexual marriage is a detriment to society as a whole. Without going into the religious reasons like immorality, valid as those are, even the logistics of it are bad. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government providing benefits intended to encourage families to homosexual couples that not only cannot have kids but may or may not (I believe without a doubt that they will) have a devastating psychological effect on adopted children if that is allowed. So for me the question isn't whether they should be allowed to do what they believe/know will make them happy, but whether allowing them to be happy will injure the rest of society. If it isn't injurious to society, which I'm not convinced it wouldn't be, then they should be allowed to do it even though I feel it is not only morally wrong but abominable. On the other hand, if it is injurious to society then it should be rejected just as polygamy, human sacrifice, and dangerous cultist practices have been.

    In that way freedom of religion in America isn't ultimate freedom, it is bounded by the concern for the whole over the concern for the individual.
     
  6. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:



    ]

     
  7. Al Gunn
    Offline

    Al Gunn BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8
    prop 8 is a homophobic law, which I'm surprised to hear from california of all places.

    For people who go to churches where gay marriage would be performed (and I'm sure that there are lots of "altenative" hippie churches in CA), you're definitely infringing on their freedom of religion.
    What this world needs isn't more freedom of religion, but rather more laws protecting our right to freedom from religion.
     
  8. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,914
    Thanks Received:
    5,109
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,719
    Seems to me the people of California spoke pretty loudly and clearly that they did not want to allow same sex marriages in their state. I guess the folks in favor of same sex marriages are disappointed that their side lost in the vote count but it also seems that they won't accept the fact that their view of same sex marriage is not popular with the majority of the population. Quit whinning and get over it... There are states now that allow same sex marriages. Move there and shut up.
     
  9. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Where were your calls for the losers to shut up and leave when your side lost?

    Or when women or blacks lost their early battles?
     
  10. Al Gunn
    Offline

    Al Gunn BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8
    Dog, homophobic people showed their true colors in CA, and if you call that freedom of religion or otherwise your country is seriously screwed up. You're a bunch of homo hating bigots, so stop wondering why the rest of the world doesn't like the US very much. Although Obama has made a good start changing people's minds...
     

Share This Page