Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom...Opinions?

[iagainsti]

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?

 

[KittenKoder]

It doesn't, it's just they need something to create fear in those who are naive.

 

[trueblue]

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.

 

[iagainsti]

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.

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.

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.

So do you agree or disagree that it does?

 

[trueblue]

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.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

]

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.[/quote


hmm... I'm thinkin' the ones who wish to infringe on the civil liberties of others

. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government providing benefits intended to encourage families to homosexual couples that not only cannot have kids

That doesn't even make sense. You're arguing that no couple shiould be allowed to marry until they have at least one child, in effect.

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.

I'm sorry, but... who the fuck are you? Are you a psychologist? A psychiatrist? Clinical physician? Psychiatric nurse? What are your qualifications to argue against the American medical Association, the American psychiatric association ,and every other respected medical group in the field? Wait, let me guess: you read a pamphlet at church?

 

[Al Gunn]

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.

 

[Big Black Dog]

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.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

 

[Al Gunn]

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...

 

[iagainsti]

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.

I'm not a fan of the argument that the fact that homosexual couples can't have kids is somehow a negative thing, for the simple reason that we already have too many people on the planet as it is! It's not like we're in desperate need of any more...we have more than enough straight people around to continue overpopulating the planet. If anything, we need to start popping out LESS kids...and it seems like homosexuality isn't a bad answer to that need. Interestingly enough, in nature, animals exhibit homosexual behavior when populations are too high and they need a way to satisfy their instinctual sexual urges without reproducing and putting themselves in danger of overpopulating their habitat. But since we see homosexuality as such a horrible, blasphemous thing, we'd rather ignore the population crisis entirely and only allow people to marry if they're able to produce more children.

As far as the "devastating" psychological effects...I'm not sure where you got your information, but personally, I can't think of an effect growing up with gay parents would have on a child other than probably making them more tolerant of homosexuality in the future. If you think having homosexual parents is more likely to make a child gay, 1) what would be so bad about that anyway? and 2) statistically speaking, most gay people come from homes with straight parents. Homosexuality isn't something that can be "taught" or "picked up"...a child can't be "turned gay," just like a gay person can't be "turned straight," even if they'd like to be.

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.

In my book, 52% does not constitute an overwhelming majority. And, like JBeukema said, it's a good thing that black people didn't decide to just "quit whining and get over it," and move to Canada where they could have their civil rights without having to contend with an unwilling "majority." Who cares about social progression, anyway?

 

[Avatar4321]

You're wrong. If a church wants to preform a ceramony "marrying" two gays. They can still do it. The government simply doesnt recognize it as a legal marriage.

But why does the government have to approve of the practice? The government doesnt recognize my baptism. I dont think my baptism is any less valid because the government doesnt recognize it. It's a covenant I made with God.

Marriage is also a covenant. In some cases between two people. In others between two people and God. Its not a covenant made with the government. We dont get married because we want to inherit each other's property when we die. We dont marry to visit them in the hospital room. We marry because we want to spend our lives with someone and create a family with them. And that can happen with or without the governments recognition.

So its impossible for Prop 8 to have stopped the free exercise of religion. Because the free exercise of religion can continue quite fine with or without government sanction.

I think there is one important question to ask: Why do gays/gay marriage supporters think their relationships are meaningless unless the relationships are recognized by others?

 

[JBeukema]

'baptism' does not simultaneously refer to a legally binding contract with far-reaching legal consequences, Av. That is why legal recognition is so important. Personally, whether any given church, political entity, or individual approves of anyone else's relationship is unimportant

 

[iagainsti]

Marriage is also a covenant. In some cases between two people. In others between two people and God. Its not a covenant made with the government. We dont get married because we want to inherit each other's property when we die. We dont marry to visit them in the hospital room. We marry because we want to spend our lives with someone and create a family with them. And that can happen with or without the governments recognition.

Agreed. Except for the part about creating a family...I don't think that's a necessary component of a marriage, but that's just my opinion.

So its impossible for Prop 8 to have stopped the free exercise of religion. Because the free exercise of religion can continue quite fine with or without government sanction.

Also agreed...I think (if I understand your meaning correctly).

I think there is one important question to ask: Why do gays/gay marriage supporters think their relationships are meaningless unless the relationships are recognized by others?

They don't. But straight marriages ARE recognized by others, and by the government...so why not gay marriages too? It's about equality.

 

[trueblue]

However unpopular, credible scientific research still suggests children raised in homosexual environments experience psychological trauma, gender confusion, tend to have lower self esteem, tend to be more violent, tend to be more promiscuous, tend not to be monogamous, tend to be abusive, have a greater risk for substance abuse, have a greater risk for suicide and are more likely to commit incest. Of course, several other researchers have attempted to discredit these claims, but few have produce research of high enough methodology quality to be approved by the APA or published in any major psychological journal (meaning their findings are suspicious if not altogether bogus). Let me know if you'd like sources-- I've got a whole list.

 

[KittenKoder]

However unpopular, credible scientific research still suggests children raised in homosexual environments experience psychological trauma, gender confusion, tend to have lower self esteem, tend to be more violent, tend to be more promiscuous, tend not to be monogamous, tend to be abusive, have a greater risk for substance abuse, have a greater risk for suicide and are more likely to commit incest. Of course, several other researchers have attempted to discredit these claims, but few have produce research of high enough methodology quality to be approved by the APA or published in any major psychological journal (meaning their findings are suspicious if not altogether bogus). Let me know if you'd like sources-- I've got a whole list.

No, it does not, the little actual evidence there is suggests the complete opposite.

 

[JBeukema]

However unpopular, credible scientific research still suggests children raised in homosexual environments experience psychological trauma, gender confusion, tend to have lower self esteem, tend to be more violent, tend to be more promiscuous, tend not to be monogamous, tend to be abusive, have a greater risk for substance abuse, have a greater risk for suicide and are more likely to commit incest.

Source?

Of course, several other researchers have attempted to discredit these claims, but few have produce research of high enough methodology quality to be approved by the APA or published in any major psychological journal

Really?

APA SUPPORTS LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGES AND OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS....

This seven-member team of psychologists {determined that} same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.

-http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html

On Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples
The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted this position statement on July 28, 2004:
“WHEREAS APA has a long-established policy to deplore "all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians" and urges "the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men" (Conger, 1975, p. 633);
“WHEREAS the APA adopted the Resolution on Legal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples in 1998 (Levant, 1998, pp. 665-666).
“WHEREAS Discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation detrimentally affects psychological, physical, social, and economic well-being (Badgett, 2001; Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Meyer; 2003);
“WHEREAS ‘Anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution’ (American Anthropological Association, 2004);
“WHEREAS Psychological research on relationships and couples provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples (Kurdek, 2001, in press; Peplau & Beals, 2004; Peplau & Spalding, 2000);
“WHEREAS The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges;
“WHEREAS The United States General Accounting Office (2004) has identified over 1,000 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges, for example, those concerning taxation, federal loans, and dependent and survivor benefits (e.g., Social Security, military, and veterans);
“WHEREAS There are numerous state, local, and private sector laws and other provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges, for example, those concerning taxation, health insurance, health care decision-making, property rights, pension and retirement benefits, and inheritance;
“WHEREAS Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage;
“WHEREAS Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples (United States General Accounting Office, 2004) ;
“WHEREAS The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable;
“WHEREAS people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status may especially benefit from access to marriage for same-sex couples (Division 44/Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Joint Task Force on Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, 2000);
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges;
“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That APA shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples;
“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That APA encourages psychologists to act to eliminate all discrimination against same-sex couples in their practice, research, education and training ("Ethical Principles," 2002, p. 1063);
“THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the APA shall provide scientific and educational resources that inform public discussion and public policy development regarding sexual orientation and marriage and that assist its members, divisions, and affiliated state, provincial, and territorial psychological associations.”

-http://www.hrc.org/issues/5516.htm

Yea, STFU

the APA itself refutes your claims

 

[Avatar4321]

'baptism' does not simultaneously refer to a legally binding contract with far-reaching legal consequences, Av. That is why legal recognition is so important. Personally, whether any given church, political entity, or individual approves of anyone else's relationship is unimportant

That's exactly my point. Its impossible for proposition 8 to be a restriction on religious freedom because a covenant does not have to be seen as legally binding by the government to be seen as binding to the parties involved.

The only reason the government recognizes marriages to begin with is to provide incentives to provide the proper environment to create and raise children to continue the values of our civilization.

 

[JBeukema]

so... you don't oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriages?

 

[iagainsti]

'baptism' does not simultaneously refer to a legally binding contract with far-reaching legal consequences, Av. That is why legal recognition is so important. Personally, whether any given church, political entity, or individual approves of anyone else's relationship is unimportant

That's exactly my point. Its impossible for proposition 8 to be a restriction on religious freedom because a covenant does not have to be seen as legally binding by the government to be seen as binding to the parties involved.

I'm trying to understand what mean here...you're saying prop 8 wouldn't be a restriction on religious freedom, meaning that if implemented it would not restrict the religious freedom of homosexuals, correct? And that's because it doesn't matter if the government recognizes their marriage, as long as they recognize it themselves?

So pretty much you're saying that they should be happy to just get a friend to marry them in their backyard, without any paperwork or legal documentation, and be happy with that because at least THEY recognize it as a legitimate union?

That's all well and good for some, but do you think straight couples would be happy if the government did away with marriage entirely? If there was no more legal documentation for ANY marriage, no legal benefits at all to being married? Would they be happy to get a friend to marry them in their backyard? Maybe some would...I would, because I think marriage as a legal institution isn't important to begin with, but that isn't the point.

The point that you're missing here is that the problem isn't that homosexuals aren't satisfied with their unions until someone else recognizes them. It's that they, and others, don't understand why they can't be extended the same legal benefits as straight couples. As I said before, it's about equality. The question here is, WHY NOT?

The only reason the government recognizes marriages to begin with is to provide incentives to provide the proper environment to create and raise children to continue the values of our civilization.

Interesting...

1) If you wouldn't mind, tell me how you know this.

2) If that's true...and I can't emphasize this point enough...at this point in our history we do NOT have a need to create any more children. Not just as a society, but as a planet. Almost every major environmental and social issue we face today is a direct consequence of overpopulation. There is no longer a need to provide an environment suited for creating children. So, if this is the reason the government recognizes marriage to begin with...shouldn't that reason be changed and expanded to fit our current situation?