Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom...Opinions?

[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

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?

I think he's saying it's the wrong argument for prop 8 opponents to make


Look, the anti-gay-marriage crowd can chill, because gay marriages being recognized by the state in no way forces their churches or themselves to change their stance on same-sex unions and contrary to their morality and religious beliefs. noone's saying they have to like it- hell, In don't have to approve of your marriage, either. It is fallacious to associate marriage as a legal state between persons with marriage as a religious practice, in a secular state.

 

[iagainsti]

Look, the anti-gay-marriage crowd can chill, because gay marriages being recognized by the state in no way forces their churches or themselves to change their stance on same-sex unions and contrary to their morality and religious beliefs. noone's saying they have to like it- hell, In don't have to approve of your marriage, either. It is fallacious to associate marriage as a legal state between persons with marriage as a religious practice, in a secular state.

Exactly! That's why I'm saying legalizing gay marriage would not be a threat to freedom of religion. Churches would not be forced to marry gay couples or to accept gay marriage just because it was legal. That's what this thread was really supposed to be all about in the first place, but people have been going off on the gay marriage debate in general...not that that's a bad thing, but this is what I really wanted to address!

 

[Smartt33]

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?

Actually, there is the issue of the hate crimes bill, being worked out right now in DC. That bill, along with the freedoms being demanded by the gay activists, would effect not only religious people, but even many non-religious who don't believe gay sex is a moral alternative lifestyle. The way it would effect them is that they would not be able to exprress that opinion publically once the bill is enacted.
There is no religious bill being made that would limit the free speech of gays. We cannot just say let them get married, and live openly in that lifestyle if we plan on still believing and preaching that gay sex is immoral. Are the rights of gays and the hate crimes bill related? You bet they are. They are both being considered because they are both being pushed by the gay activists. There is one goal, and the rest of the population doesn't count.

 

[Al Gunn]

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?

Actually, there is the issue of the hate crimes bill, being worked out right now in DC. That bill, along with the freedoms being demanded by the gay activists, would effect not only religious people, but even many non-religious who don't believe gay sex is a moral alternative lifestyle. The way it would effect them is that they would not be able to exprress that opinion publically once the bill is enacted.
There is no religious bill being made that would limit the free speech of gays. We cannot just say let them get married, and live openly in that lifestyle if we plan on still believing and preaching that gay sex is immoral. Are the rights of gays and the hate crimes bill related? You bet they are. They are both being considered because they are both being pushed by the gay activists. There is one goal, and the rest of the population doesn't count.

smartt, you're supposed to be such a goody two shoes religionite, why you so full of hate towards gays that a goddam HATE CRIME BILL scares you? You weirdos can't let them be? That's VERY fucked up. Not what jesus would have wanted people preaching in his name to do, I'm betting.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know........I grew up in a heterosexual family. What I learned there was physical, mental, and sexual abuse at the hands of those that were supposed to teach and care for me.

Had a really fucked up view of relationships for awhile because of it.

In '98 through '99, I was stationed in Norfolk VA. I lived with 2 lesbians who had a daughter, for two years. She had a healthier attitude about sex and what NOT to do, than many of those who were several years her senior. She was 15.

I also learned more about watching those 2 women live together about what a HEALTHY relationship should look like than any other place I've ever lived. I also was given a perspective to be around the gay community, and to tell you the truth, most gays are a hell of a lot more decent than the Christians who denigrate and persecute them.

But.......if you think about it, it's kinda like the fat girl who was always teased in high school, who grows up with a really healthy attitude, and then at around 25, she turns into a gorgeous lady.

She's kind to everyone, no matter what they look like.

Gays are the same way.

Personally? I think the straights could learn a hell of a lot about tolerance and compassion from the gay community.

And.......to tell the truth..........they better listen up soon, because Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed!

 

[Father Time]

I live in California and the amount of bullshit the prop 8 people either believed or were willing to put out into the public was astonishing.

For instance I saw several signs saying "Prop 8 = freedom of speech"

The only connection I heard was hate speech which was really stupid since prop 8 didn't change any hate speech laws and didn't hamper the ability for hate speech laws to be made in the slightest.

Really the only thing it did was get rid of gay marriage.

 

[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?

Actually, there is the issue of the hate crimes bill, being worked out right now in DC. That bill, along with the freedoms being demanded by the gay activists, would effect not only religious people, but even many non-religious who don't believe gay sex is a moral alternative lifestyle. The way it would effect them is that they would not be able to exprress that opinion publically once the bill is enacted.

I don't support a bill that would stop religious people from expressing their opinions on gay marriage. However, that's not what the hate crimes bill is...it would persecute those who threaten to harm someone because of their sexual orientation, not those who simply express the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. Think about it: the hate crimes laws that already exist protect against crimes committed based on race, religion, or national origin. Have you ever heard of someone being persecuted for expressing racist opinions? It's not illegal to say racist things...so what makes you think extending the protection to include sexual orientation would make it illegal to say anti-homosexual things?

And anyway, that whole thing is beside the point. The hate crimes bill and gay marriage laws are two separate issues...so back to gay marriage, yeah?

We cannot just say let them get married, and live openly in that lifestyle if we plan on still believing and preaching that gay sex is immoral.

Why not?

There are plenty of things religious people preach against that are legal: alcohol, premarital sex, birth control, doing work on Sundays, saying "goddammit," and the list goes on and on. Should those things be illegal because a certain religious group wants to be able to preach against them? No: their legality does nothing to prevent those groups from saying whatever they want to about them. In fact, to make those things illegal would be to infringe on the religious freedom of those who do NOT belong to those religious groups, in my opinion.

Are the rights of gays and the hate crimes bill related? You bet they are.

No shit?!

Of course they are. But although both have to do with the rights of gays, they are two different rights. The right to marry and the right to be protected from being threatened or harmed because of your sexual orientation are two separate issues.

They are both being considered because they are both being pushed by the gay activists. There is one goal, and the rest of the population doesn't count.

You could say the same about the religious right, couldn't you? The bottom line here, which you aren't addressing, is this:

Gay marriage being legal would not prevent religious people from speaking out against gay marriage (whether the hate crimes bill would or not is a separate issue entirely, even though I don't think it would). It also would not prevent churches from refusing to marry gay couples on the grounds that homosexuality goes against their beliefs. You haven't given me one legitimate way in which gay marriage would infringe on the rights of Christians.

On the other hand, I think that making gay marriage illegal on the grounds that it is immoral according to the Christian religion WOULD infringe on the religious freedom of homosexuals who are not Christian. You also didn't give me one good argument against that.

 

[Father Time]

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?

Actually, there is the issue of the hate crimes bill, being worked out right now in DC. That bill, along with the freedoms being demanded by the gay activists, would effect not only religious people, but even many non-religious who don't believe gay sex is a moral alternative lifestyle. The way it would effect them is that they would not be able to exprress that opinion publically once the bill is enacted.
There is no religious bill being made that would limit the free speech of gays. We cannot just say let them get married, and live openly in that lifestyle if we plan on still believing and preaching that gay sex is immoral. Are the rights of gays and the hate crimes bill related? You bet they are. They are both being considered because they are both being pushed by the gay activists. There is one goal, and the rest of the population doesn't count.

Except we're only talking about gay marriage not hate crime laws. There's no reason why we can't have one (gay marriage) and not the other (hate crime/hate speech laws).

 

[Father Time]

On a side note how many more gay topics do we need in this forum anyway?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Screw it.........ban marriage, and just give people a tax write off if they live with you.

If you can prove that you live in the same address? You get to visit them in the hospital.

 

[iagainsti]

On a side note how many more gay topics do we need in this forum anyway?

You can NEVER have too many gay topics!

And on another side note...hey, I still think LOLcats are funny.

 

[eots]

then you should love this...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOld1BvGSgo]YouTube - My cat is GAY-where did i go wrong?[/ame]

 

[Father Time]

I didn't make that pie chart

The Escapist : Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : Spiderman: Web of Shadows

Although I am tired of lolcats.

 

[Smartt33]

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?

Actually, there is the issue of the hate crimes bill, being worked out right now in DC. That bill, along with the freedoms being demanded by the gay activists, would effect not only religious people, but even many non-religious who don't believe gay sex is a moral alternative lifestyle. The way it would effect them is that they would not be able to exprress that opinion publically once the bill is enacted.
There is no religious bill being made that would limit the free speech of gays. We cannot just say let them get married, and live openly in that lifestyle if we plan on still believing and preaching that gay sex is immoral. Are the rights of gays and the hate crimes bill related? You bet they are. They are both being considered because they are both being pushed by the gay activists. There is one goal, and the rest of the population doesn't count.

smartt, you're supposed to be such a goody two shoes religionite, why you so full of hate towards gays that a goddam HATE CRIME BILL scares you? You weirdos can't let them be? That's VERY fucked up. Not what jesus would have wanted people preaching in his name to do, I'm betting.

First, there was no hate in what I wrote. However, your attitude toward the Christian view of gay sex as sin causes you to only see hate.

The hate crimes bill doesn't scare me, I believe what I believe and if what I believe becomes a crime, so be it.

The truth be known, the gay activists are doing the same thing that the far right Christians and the radical Muslims are doing. They are ruining it for the people who have a belief, but don't aim it at people to make them targets. I have plenty of proof that I love gay people, I don't have to prove anything. I believe we must love all people. That does not mean that we have to agree with them all, or tolerate them all, or condone their behavior.

The hate that I see here comes from people like you, but you will not see it.

 

[iagainsti]

I didn't make that pie chart

The Escapist : Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : Spiderman: Web of Shadows

Although I am tired of lolcats.

How could you ever get tired of this?

 

[WhyNotEquality?]

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.

First of all, you argue that homosexual couples will have a negative effect on adopted children if they are allowed to adopt. Did you ever stop to consider the reasons these children are up for adoption in the first place? It isn't because a homosexual couple couldn't provide for them and they ended up with social services. It isn't because a homosexual couple got pregnant unexpectedly and didn't have the integrity to take responsibility for their child. So before you bring homosexual couples into the argument, first consider the psychological effects that the child's heterosexual parents have left with them for life.

Second of all, speaking as a child of a homosexual, I feel no psychological effects because of the sexual orientation of my parent. In fact, I feel that it has given me a better understanding of the love and respect that homosexual couples are able to share. Perhaps if more of the ignorant homophobes in the U.S. had grown up with a homosexual couple as role models, they wouldn't be taking the privileges of marriage for granted.

 

[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.

First of all, you argue that homosexual couples will have a negative effect on adopted children if they are allowed to adopt. Did you ever stop to consider the reasons these children are up for adoption in the first place? It isn't because a homosexual couple couldn't provide for them and they ended up with social services. It isn't because a homosexual couple got pregnant unexpectedly and didn't have the integrity to take responsibility for their child. So before you bring homosexual couples into the argument, first consider the psychological effects that the child's heterosexual parents have left with them for life.

Excellent point.

Second of all, speaking as a child of a homosexual, I feel no psychological effects because of the sexual orientation of my parent. In fact, I feel that it has given me a better understanding of the love and respect that homosexual couples are able to share. Perhaps if more of the ignorant homophobes in the U.S. had grown up with a homosexual couple as role models, they wouldn't be taking the privileges of marriage for granted.

Another good point. Whenever someone claims that growing up with homosexual parents has negative effects on children, I can't help but wonder what those negative effects could possibly be. The only effect that makes sense to me is that children who grow up with homosexual parents would probably be more likely to be proponents of gay rights, since the issue directly affects the most important people in their lives - their parents. It's great to hear firsthand from someone that having a homosexual parent had just that effect.

 

[tuckleberry]

I think one of the most important aspects of this deabte is to believe in the value of another person's opinion, sincerity, and motivation. As unnecessarily harsh as some conservatives can be about legal rights, gay activists can be just as bad. The virtue of caring about equality does not make up for dismissing other people's priorities.
There is very little effort made on the part of gay rights’ activists to understand the anti-same sex marriage position.

The issue of gay marriage is an interesting crossroads, though, because it makes the private lives of others a PUBLIC ceremony, or rite,--marriage. Marriage has several components that make such redefinition problematic. I think for many people the most important is simply the inevitable shift in our culture and national scenery that acknowledges and accepts, to an unprecedented level, the normalcy and validity of formally making a spouse/mate of someone who shares your gender. Shares your gender and the sisterly/brotherly charactereistics of relationships among people of the same sex--that are in part DEFINED by being Platonic. There is undoubtedly an incestuous feel about this to the uninitiated. I suspect that is the more specific answer you would get from someone who says something like, gay marriage "just doesn't seem right." I do not support gay marriage, almost entirely for religious reasons. I believe that marriage is more than than a civil arrangement, but rather ordained by God, and very firmly and deliberately designated to opposite-sex mates. For me to condone or recognize as legitimate the marriage of two men or two women would be to show disrespect for God and to redefine what is good and acceptable on my own, without regard for the standard that I am convicted by God to hold up for myself.
Now, all of these thoughts and beliefs are personal to me, and are not necessarily a part of the larger society I live in. There are many ways of being immoral besides the particular situation of being sexual with a member of your own sex, some of which are common among us and have been accepted in our culture for a long time. (We have to tolerate others so that they will tolerate us.)
The issue isn't really that some clergy need to have their right to discriminate protected, but that the public in general is now being forced to move beyond 'live and let live,' and potentially acknowledge the equality--not of people--but of heterosexuality and homosexuality. We may balk at that for different reasons--and maybe some will change their minds--but that is the issue of equality at hand. I don't have any problem challenging that equality--in fact, I would be reluctant not to. I understand that some of us--maybe up to 10%--are born with a different sexual orietation than man/woman. What I disagree with is that our sexuality defines us, or identifies us to the extent that we cannot separate our behavior with our inclinations. This applies to everybody. I don't think straight people having sex when they're not married is right either.
Why are some people born gay if marriage is only for opposite-sex mates? I have no idea. Refer to my last paragraph.

 

[KittenKoder]

The government denying gay marriage is actually against religious freedom and is the government itself telling you what you can and cannot believe. Just because you agree with it this one time, doesn't change what it is, an infringement on religious rights.