Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Will homosexuals silence America's Christians?
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/1/2008 5:30:00 AM

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=335084 (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=335084)

With Brazil's government caving in to homosexual activism, many fear America is not far behind.

Brazilian activists have launched several lawsuits to silence Christian opposition of homosexuality, and a Christian author has been both censored and fined over comments in his book. Mat Barber, with Liberty Counsel, believes America will likely follow suit.

"It's really chilling, and people need to be aware that this is not a threat that is isolated to Brazil or Europe or Canada," he contends. "It's coming to our shores (America) as well."

*Exaggerated rolling of the eyes*

So they should be allowed to spread hate speech and misinformation about us? To sweep up sentiment against us, promoting ignorance and fear and hate, and finally violence?!

->-bleeped-<-ers.

(Damn. Seem to be using that word alot today. I think I might be a bit aggro...)

~Simone.

Homosexuals will never silence Christians.  Christians will never silence homosexuals.  In the first place, these are not, as has been assumed in this discussion, mutually exclusive groups.  Some of us Christians are quite loving and caring.  I just think there is a lot of meanness on both sides and the bullies need to call it quits.

I know I get flamed every time I say this, but I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, even if it is nothing at all.  So long as no violence is done to another person, I do not think we should try to silence one another.  America was founded on this principle, and if we want it, we have to allow it for those we do not agree with.  There is no other option.  Else, we leave it up to the state to decide what we can believe and what we can say.  That idea makes me incredibly nervous.

Every law on every level is based on a moral judgment.  Like it or not, these things are based upon our own moral framework, including our religious perspective.  It is impossible not to legislate morality.  Those who claim to be doing so are ludicrous.  It is just time we come clean about this, and pick those whose moral framework matches best with what we hope to accomplish in society.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

They obviously never saw the Castro District at Xmas, it's AbFab.

My problem is that about 87% of the USA populace is claiming, at least some of them claim, that they are going to be "silenced" by about 5% of the population when the rules, laws, economic supports and social interactions in said country are all geared to favor the 87%?

That's simply ludicrous on the face of it, regardless how we legislate civil morality.

I'm sorry, the very notion that xtians are persecuted in USA is extraordinary! We don't even tax the assets (land, buildings, incomes) of "ministries" here. WTF! But we as a nation are gonna start repressing them?

Sorry, this BS is on the order of blacks oppressing whites if they got legal civil rights and of women oppressing men after second-wave feminism started raising consciousness.

What this sort of thing is is another way for "ministries" to do what they do: raise money. The appeals to grandma to mail $20 to "Reverend Ike" so he can "save America from the homosexuals and othe perverts" is the real goal here. Cynical buzzards!

Christians here always get persecution complexes when they are in fear of not being able to totally repress others. They like to hark back to a kind of Donatist appeal to martyrdom a la the 1st-3rd cento xtians. It's ridiculous!

But, Reverend Ike never went broke underestimating the intelligence and persicacity of the American public. In fact, Reverend Ike manages a rather nice material existence to enfold him while he awaits the Final Judgement.

Nichole

Reverend Ike, to quote him, don't want "his pie in the sky by and by when you die."  He's eating his cake on earth.

Quote from: tekla on December 01, 2008, 10:53:29 AM
Reverend Ike, to quote him, don't want "his pie in the sky by and by when you die."  He's eating his cake on earth.

Yes, Ike and his co-conspirators never appear to be under-fed, under-served or under-economically well-off. :) O for persecution like that for all Americans!

N~

Hey Jebus would wear a Rolex and have a private jet, perhaps even Apostle Brand logo wear.

Quote from: Kristi on December 01, 2008, 09:46:01 AM
Homosexuals will never silence Christians.  Christians will never silence homosexuals.  In the first place, these are not, as has been assumed in this discussion, mutually exclusive groups.  Some of us Christians are quite loving and caring.  I just think there is a lot of meanness on both sides and the bullies need to call it quits.

I know I get flamed every time I say this, but I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, even if it is nothing at all.  So long as no violence is done to another person, I do not think we should try to silence one another.  America was founded on this principle, and if we want it, we have to allow it for those we do not agree with.  There is no other option.  Else, we leave it up to the state to decide what we can believe and what we can say.  That idea makes me incredibly nervous.

I agree we cannot make blanket statements on either side. And, there are plenty of LBGTIQ people who are also Christians (or other religions).

America was founded on the principals of separation of church and state. It was a good idea then, and it's a good one now. My problem is with those who wish to erase that.

Z

Quote from: Emme on December 01, 2008, 09:58:45 AM
Please, I'm literally begging here, give me an argument that says we should write discrimination into our constitution against the LGBT community that ISN'T "because the Bible tells me so."  To date, though I've asked repeatedly for one, I've only gotten the Christian ideology thrown back at me.  Therefore, I stand by my original post.

As I predicted.

I gave you no Biblical warrants for anything.  And I don't think it would be helpful because I do not believe the Bible teaches any such thing.  Let's be fair, most Christian clergy live very simple lives, are paid wages far below the going salaries of almost any other profession, despite having at least one advanced degree.  Most of their days are spent helping other people, those who are sick, in poverty, tending the dying, counseling, and much more.  Being a minister is always rated among the most stressful jobs to have.  Most of them would never endorse the kinds of things you seem to think all Christians believe.  And no, 99.9%+ of them don't have Rolexes or private jets.  If you dispute this, you simply haven't met many Christian clergy.  I do know that the media ignores the vast majority of Christians, and loves to show off the fringe element.  (The same way TG people are made to look like freaks)  Most Christinas know that Ike is nothing but a charlatan.

It is fine to want to try to silence a group of people when you see the pendulum of public opinion going your way.  But please look at history.  It will surely swing back.  Do you really want to be on the other end of this?  For me, we have gained too much ground to get haughty and ruin it.

The truth is, we have a system designed to protect the rights and free speech of minorities as well as majorities.   We have a system designed to eliminate state interference in what people believe and how they worship.  We do not have a system that makes it permissible to carry out violence or hate crimes.  Yes, there are pitfalls, and the system is not perfect.  Yes, some have crossed the line and need to be dealt with.  However, I would never ever want to settle for the alternative.  You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't.  I, for one, would like for us all to retain this right.  I support the rights of groups I totally disagree with because the surest way to destroy this fundamental right is to silence even one part of society.  If, however, that is the world you wish for, good luck.  I will always stand in opposition to oppression.

Peace,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

And that is that. :) I love it when our Kristi puts down her lil ole size 2s and says "enough."

And, TBH, my problem has never been xtianity itself. Just the way some of the more vocal and politically inclined do seem to want to tuen the USA into even a more theocratic state than we've already had.

But, I'll vouch for my friend. She is NOT one of those Christians. So let's be nice to her and to ourselves and distinguish where we should.

Nichole

I've always tried to walk a very fine line between nothing being a monolith and the feeling that you have to dance with who brought you too.  So, of course those people, the Rolex preachers, those who would seek to use a religious cover for political action, and those who are just out and out preaching hate and more hate are not only kind of Christians, but I'll take them at their world that they are Christians.  And at that, they might well be a minority of their faith, but for sure, they are garnering about 95% of the press, and that's by design also.

Quote from: tekla on December 01, 2008, 04:17:15 PM
And at that, they might well be a minority of their faith, but for sure, they are garnering about 95% of the press, and that's by design also.

I agree, this is by design.  But whose design do you think it is?  No doubt, the charlatans revel in it.  Plus, most of what Christians do just is not newsworthy.  In fact, according to the faith, many believe that their good deeds should be done in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves.  Instead, life is is to be lived in such a way that the quality speaks for itself.  I personally have problems with those who act otherwise.

QuoteAll I said was this is not a theocracy and we should not be rewriting the Constitution or creating new laws based solely on one groups religious beliefs.  We shouldn't outlaw eating beef because the Hindu religion views them as sacred.  Women shouldn't need to be covered from head to toe because Muslim religion demands it.  I used Christians as the example because it was handy, but I'm not going to be forbidden to eat anything because one group's religious texts say no.  I'm not going to dress according to one group's dress code simply because their texts say it's how I should dress.  So no, I'm not going to chalk it up to free speech when one group wants the right to determine who I can or cannot marry and IF I can have the same rights as everyone else.  That's not free speech.  You're free to say whatever beliefs you have until you push those beliefs into legislation that impacts my life.  That's going too far.  I don't agree with a lot of people floating around this world, but I'll be the first one to defend their right to say it.

Actually, most Christians would agree with much of what you have said. ;D

The marriage issue is quite complex.  It is an institution that has religious origins and deep secular consequences.  As a nation, we still have not figured out which realm it belongs in.  In America, the state recognizes the right of religious organizations (via their clergy) to perform marriages.  But at the same time, a marriage done by a JP is just as legal and just as binding.  Religions decide which kinds of marriages they will bless and perform.  Yet, no religion is allowed to go beyond the boundaries set by the state.  This is confusing at best, and the crux of the problem.  But maybe it is the only system of checks and balances that will work.

Peace,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)

Quote from: Kristi on December 01, 2008, 05:26:10 PM
The marriage issue is quite complex.&nbsp; It is an institution that has religious origins and deep secular consequences.&nbsp; As a nation, we still have not figured out which realm it belongs in.&nbsp; In America, the state recognizes the right of religious organizations (via their clergy) to perform marriages.&nbsp; But at the same time, a marriage done by a JP is just as legal and just as binding.&nbsp; Religions decide which kinds of marriages they will bless and perform.&nbsp; Yet, no religion is allowed to go beyond the boundaries set by the state.&nbsp; This is confusing at best, and the crux of the problem.&nbsp; But maybe it is the only system of checks and balances that will work.

Peace,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)

The answer is civil marriage, referred to as civil union or some such thing wherein there is no precher, priest or other religious figure associated with a state-sanctioned union.

Religious ceremonies would be available, as they are, for anyone wishing to have their union blessed by one or another religious group.

A separation of church and state with a firm wall demands no less: ministers, priests, rabbis, imams should not have any state authority to do a darned thing, unless they happen to be duly-sworn governmental officials. At which point they'd need to do exactly what their employer requires.

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole link=topic=50500.msg312181#msg312181
The answer is civil marriage, referred to as civil union or some such thing wherein there is no precher, priest or other religious figure associated with a state-sanctioned union.

Religious ceremonies would be available, as they are, for anyone wishing to have their union blessed by one or another religious group.

A separation of church and state with a firm wall demands no less: ministers, priests, rabbis, imams should not have any state authority to do a darned thing, unless they happen to be duly-sworn governmental officials. At which point they'd need to do exactly what their employer requires.
Nichole

If only it were that simple.  Some see marriage as a civil institution.  Others see it as a religious one, subsequently endorsed by the state.   Some would see this move as a great infringement on the free exercise of religion.  I don't think it would ever go through.  The constitutional challenges to the state, essentially, dictating doctrine to the church by controlling its clergy would likely be insurmountable.  There is no way that clergy would ever consent to working for the state, especially after Hitler's attempts to nationalize them.  If you are interested in this concept, you might want to check out the Barmen Declaration and the history surrounding it, along with Dietrich Bonhoeffer. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)

Fixed the quote for you, Kristi  ;) =K

The beauty is the State wouldn't "control" the clergy. The clergy, like the rest of the citizens would have to control themselves. All they'd have to do is if they're authorized to conduct civil unions for anyone, they'd have to conduct them for anyone, at all. As long of the people met the state requirements.

They could always refuse to allow a gay, a wiccan or even a marriage anong their own flock if they wanted to.

It wouldn't be a matter of "forcing" anyone. Instead, merely granting them the right to do as they saw fit. If they couldn't "in good conscience" wed two men -- then don't apply to an ability to wed people. Fairly simple and would maintain, actually separate for good this church/state thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Kris, but isn't there some bit in the Bible about "giving the state what's the state's and the diety what's the deity's?" Twould be simply  matter of re-establishing what was established before Theodocius made xtianity a state-religion and things were never again the same in xtianity.

They could preform whatever they wished or not within the precincts of their temples or churches.

Nichole

Another answer is to get the state out of marriage altogether.  Mention that to someone and you'll get to see their real motivations in the marriage debate.

Any takers?  ;D

My proposal would, state out of marriage and religion outta the state. Someone wants to get "married" go to church, but the tax-exemptions would only be available with a civil union. "Marriage" would be a strictly religious state, a sacrament.

The state remains free of religious taint. 

Wonder how many of the religious would accept that? :)

Quote from: Emme on December 01, 2008, 07:01:58 PM

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 01, 2008, 06:59:04 PM
Another answer is to get the state out of marriage altogether.  Mention that to someone and you'll get to see their real motivations in the marriage debate.

So then you'd deny atheists and agnostics the right to marry instead?  What would your alternative be, if not a legal contract?

I wouldn't be denying anyone anything.  In the eyes of the state, marriage would be just what you said, and nothing more - a legal contract.  Not a political football, not a tool for social engineering, and not an intrusion of a religious sacrament into a secular government.  There wouldn't be a special category of law for marriage.  People would be free to define what marriage is for themselves, within the limits of existing contract law.

Its a civil contract, enforced as such.  No matter how many preachers and churches you got round you at the beginning, the end is lawyers, judges and courtrooms. 

Quote from: Nichole on December 01, 2008, 07:07:16 PM
My proposal would, state out of marriage and religion outta the state. Someone wants to get "married" go to church, but the tax-exemptions would only be available with a civil union. "Marriage" would be a strictly religious state, a sacrament.

I agree, but only 90%.  I don't think the state should be certifying ANY kind of union or offering any benefit because of it.  That'd just start the whole problem over again.

So marriage ought to be treated the same as membership in the Elks, Moose or Odd Fellows.

Quote from: Emme on December 01, 2008, 07:18:13 PM
Then marriage, the religious institution of it, should be stripped of all legal benefits.  Everyone or no one.  This is the way of balance. 

Exactly.  Anything else and you need to justify unequal treatment.

Quote from: Nichole on December 01, 2008, 06:45:37 PM
The beauty is the State wouldn't "control" the clergy. The clergy, like the rest of the citizens would have to control themselves. All they'd have to do is if they're authorized to conduct civil unions for anyone, they'd have to conduct them for anyone, at all. As long of the people met the state requirements.   They could always refuse to allow a gay, a wiccan or even a marriage anong their own flock if they wanted to.

It wouldn't be a matter of "forcing" anyone. Instead, merely granting them the right to do as they saw fit. If they couldn't "in good conscience" wed two men -- then don't apply to an ability to wed people. Fairly simple and would maintain, actually separate for good this church/state thing....
They could preform whatever they wished or not within the precincts of their temples or churches.

Well I understand where you are coming from.  But you need to understand that in America it has always been the view that the church (or any other religion for that matter) has never derived its powers and rights from the state.  Since in Christian and Jewish theology, marriage is not seen as primarily a civil union, but a spiritual covenant, your proposal, in essence, would be dictating a change in doctrine.  The state recognizes this, and has since the founding of the country.  In some states clergy are required to register and show proof of ordination.  But nowhere is there a theological examination by the state to decide who is in the union.  Such would be extremely unconstitutional.

Further, this is not seen as some kind of right or privilege granted by the state.  It is a recognition of a reality.  Your proposal would be removing the rights of a group of people because of their particular beliefs.  I would be against it for the very same reason I was against "Proposition 8."  When someone's beliefs differ from ours, the best way to deal with it is never to begin whittling down their rights.

Quote from: Nichole on December 01, 2008, 06:45:37 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, Kris, but isn't there some bit in the Bible about "giving the state what's the state's and the diety what's the deity's?"

I really didn't want to get into throwing verses around, but I think you are referring to Luke 20:25 which reads, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." 

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning:  Try as you might, you will never convince the church or the synagogue that marriage belongs to Caesar (i.e., the government.)  The very same verse would probably be used against your opinion, rather than for it.

FWIW, the church has always recognized the validity of marriage not performed within its bounds.  Nothing will change that.  The simplest solution is, again, to use whatever legislative will there might be out there to change society as you wish.  There are some things the church may or may not ever accept, and even that will vary within the spectrum of Christendom.  If you are not part of it, what do you care?  But you will certainly run into many legal problems if you try to take rights or beliefs away from the church or synagogue, or set doctrinal standards for its clergy.  The status of marriage and the recognition of marriage as a religious ritual is certainly one of those areas.  It is a deeply and sincerely held belief for far too many people.  Your proposal would no doubt be welcomed by many people here.   It would just be highly unconstitutional.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on December 01, 2008, 09:46:01 AM
I know I get flamed every time I say this, but I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, even if it is nothing at all.  So long as no violence is done to another person, I do not think we should try to silence one another.  America was founded on this principle, and if we want it, we have to allow it for those we do not agree with.  There is no other option.  Else, we leave it up to the state to decide what we can believe and what we can say.  That idea makes me incredibly nervous.

Every law on every level is based on a moral judgment.  Like it or not, these things are based upon our own moral framework, including our religious perspective.  It is impossible not to legislate morality.  Those who claim to be doing so are ludicrous.  It is just time we come clean about this, and pick those whose moral framework matches best with what we hope to accomplish in society.

Kristi, may I stand with you on this?  "Live and let live" just seems so obvious -- why are there those who don't/can't/won't get it?

You are also right about there always being a morality.  Even atheists have a morality, and there are many moral people who are also atheists.

But those who believe in social fundamentalism see only THE morality, which must be defended at all costs -- any other morality is immoral and must be destroyed at all costs.

Karen

P.S.,  Maybe we as society will have to destroy marriage in order to save it...

p.p.s,  Kristi, I thought it should be "Render unto Caesar if line 56 is greater than line 64"...

Unfortunately, no.

Lia

Quote from: Emme on December 01, 2008, 04:32:28 PM
SNIP
I never made any claim as to Rolexes or private jets.  All I said was this is not a theocracy and we should not be rewriting the Constitution or creating new laws based solely on one groups religious beliefs.  We shouldn't outlaw eating beef because the Hindu religion views them as sacred.  Women shouldn't need to be covered from head to toe because Muslim religion demands it.  I used Christians as the example because it was handy, but I'm not going to be forbidden to eat anything because one group's religious texts say no.  I'm not going to dress according to one group's dress code simply because their texts say it's how I should dress.  So no, I'm not going to chalk it up to free speech when one group wants the right to determine who I can or cannot marry and IF I can have the same rights as everyone else.  That's not free speech.  You're free to say whatever beliefs you have until you push those beliefs into legislation that impacts my life.  That's going too far.  I don't agree with a lot of people floating around this world, but I'll be the first one to defend their right to say it.

I've struggled this issue for years, and so have the courts.  How can it be practicable to strike down a law simply on the basis that it accords with religious views?  Couldn't a murderer avoid justice by pointing out that the law against murder promotes religion, with the smoking gun being that it is one of the ten commandments not to kill? 

The courts have been using the Lemon Test for a long time, but it is crumbling and will likely be replaced before long.  What should the new test be?

Under the Lemon Test, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test) ) there are three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


The secular legislative purpose prong is easy to pass.  For example, one could say that it is OK to make marriage only between one man and one woman because  the benefits of marriage are designed to promote effective childrearing, and the state can reasonably assume that a man and woman can have a child, while gay couples cannot.  And it's a whole "best interests of the child" argument about promoting biological parenting over alternatives.  As another example, one could say that anal intercourse between consenting adults is against the law because it has a higher liklihood of spreading disease, like HIV.

The third prong is usually also easy to pass.  It typically only comes up in the sense that the government would have to monitor how its funds are spent very closely to ensure that the money is not used to promote religion.

It is the second prong where things get interesting, but also very fuzzy.  It is very judge dependent on how that one comes out.

Quote from: Emme on December 02, 2008, 08:47:45 AM

Quote from: glendagladwitch on December 02, 2008, 08:38:40 AM

Quote from: Emme on December 01, 2008, 04:32:28 PM
Wall of Text

I've struggled this issue for years, and so have the courts.  How can it be practicable to strike down a law simply on the basis that it accords with religious views?  Couldn't a murderer avoid justice by pointing out that the law against murder promotes religion, with the smoking gun being that it is one of the ten commandments not to kill? 

The courts have been using the Lemon Test for a long time, but it is crumbling and will likely be replaced before long.  What should the new test be?

Under the Lemon Test, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test) ) there are three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


The secular legislative purpose prong is easy to pass.  For example, one could say that it is OK to make marriage only between one man and one woman because  the benefits of marriage are designed to promote effective childrearing, and the state can reasonably assume that a man and woman can have a child, while gay couples cannot.  And it's a whole "best interests of the child" argument about promoting biological parenting over alternatives.  As another example, one could say that anal intercourse between consenting adults is against the law because it has a higher liklihood of spreading disease, like HIV.

The third prong is usually also easy to pass.  It typically only comes up in the sense that the government would have to monitor how its funds are spent very closely to ensure that the money is not used to promote religion.

It is the second prong where things get interesting, but also very fuzzy.  It is very judge dependent on how that one comes out.

For me, the test becomes "Is religion the only way this idea becomes valid?"  We'll take murder, as you said.  yes, religion says you shouldn't murder.  However, the act of murder, aside from religion, infringes on the rights of another person.  Therefore, I take no issue with laws against murder.  Religion says you can't steal.  Stealing infringes on the rights of another person.  Therefore, I take no issue with laws against stealing.  Religion says homosexuals cannot marry.  But wait.  Where is the infringement of rights?  If the parties are of consenting age, and are agreed on the act of marriage, then I fail to see why this should be made a law.  And until the day someone comes to me and says "This is why I feel they should not be allowed to marry, and it has NOTHING to do with any religious text, Bible or otherwise.", I will stand by my previous postings.  IF such an argument can be made, while I most likely will still disagree, I will be open minded to hear out the argument, weight its worth, and be open to the possibility of changing my mind.  And I say that because I truthfully do not believe such an argument exists and the only infringement of rights comes from those that would propose the legislation, not those that would marry.

Well, playing devil's advocate, the courts have long ago stated that marriage is not a religious institution.  In the U.S., it is a legal status that allows property to be passed on death without inheritance taxes coming into play, and that allows the couple to take advantage of one of the biggest tax benefits around (if the woman stays home and the man works).  The working person in that couple gets to go down several tax brackets and avoid paying lots of income taxes.

If anyone were permitted to marry, then rich guys could avoid taxes by marrying someone.  Of course, that can still happen if he marries a woman.  But the job of administering who can get married and who cannot is too burdensome.  The state can't afford to do fertility tests on everyone to prevent women who can't bear children from marrying.  A bright line rule that is easy to follow is best.

The assumption is that a man and woman can have children.  Preventiong same sex couples from marrying primarily prevents abuse of the tax and inheritance scheme for a non-intended purpose.  Thus, marriage should be between one man and one woman only.

So there is an argument for you to pick apart.  Go.

Quote from: Kristi on December 01, 2008, 06:25:56 PM

If only it were that simple.  Some see marriage as a civil institution.  Others see it as a religious one, subsequently endorsed by the state. 

I think this goes beyond a matter of who "sees" it which way. Marriage is a codified civil contract and is called marriage in the books, not anything else. I'm sorry but if the religious right wants to appropriate the word and all the semantics that come with it, that's just a hostile takeover that has no rights whatsoever and should be met with equal determination.

@ Emme:

Yes, this argument is based on the view that marriage's only purpose is for both the bearing and raising of children.

Single people can adopt too.  Should they be able to marry themsleves?

And as for the thing about fertility testing women, I should have said testing all women and men to see if they are capable of creating young to feed the nation's ongoing need for wage slaves and soldiers.

O, Kris, your historical argument is absolutely spot-on with the history of this country. Pretty much every colony was established on a religious basis: Puritan (Massachusetts, Connecticutt, Rhode Island), Leveller (Plymouth), Anglican with Royal Authority(New York, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia), Catholic (Maryland, but for less than a complete generation and then the Catholics were persecuted there as well!), Calvinist (New Jersey through Swedish and Dutch settlement) and Quaker (Pennsylvania.)

Personally, I'd actually like to see American xtians experience a bit of persecution from someone other than themselves (which they have most gladly done throughout the histories of both the colonies and the states united.) That notion is not likely to receive any popular acclaim though and I have to admit it's a strictly atavistic dislike of xtianity in toto that  leaves me with that feeling. Individual xtians such as yourself and Karen bother me not in the least -- xtian denominations seem to me to be nothing other than politico-economic corporations that need to be taxed and held in check as much as possible just like their openly economic counterparts. Each is about exactly as trust-worthy as the other.

So, the very radical perspective that if one is religious that is all well. Be so. But leave your ideas about how everyone else HAS to live their lives at your door-step and there will be NO law that abridges my right to live my life as I choose when it comes to matters that have absolutely no rational bearing on how you live yours or on the establishment of social peace and conviviality. 

The rest of the "nunace" is simply xtians being required to no longer be the "definers" of the civic morality. Religious morality and civic morality can co-exist. It's normally the xtian side, for reasons of 1600 years of being "state-religions," that consistently gets in the way of that. We have this insane notion that belief in a god who recommended the slaughter of children and all living inhabitants of places where "he" wasn't worshipped as the standard of "morality."

No thanks, I prefer my blood-sacrifices to be willing to be sacrificed if they must exist. Xtians long ago abdicated any right or moral-force to be the "gold standard" of morality.

However, that one niggly generation of the Enlightenment after which (although we claim a lot of respect for them) the lights went out again in USA due to the "religious fervor" of the populace that was led about by their clergy (justifying and damning slavery, women's rights, and convinced that Winthrop's "City On A Hill" was the definite fact about USA coupled with a consistent Calvinist ethic of "the elect" being those who had monetary success and "the damned" those who didn't (our social provisions for charity, etc have always been problematic (for how the heck can you be "elect" and help those horrid "damned" to be as well-off as thee? You should not help those God has obviously turned his back on) has been in ascendance for close to two-hundred years. *sigh*

There have been more laws limiting the movements and settlement rights of "the poor" in this country than there ever were laws enabling "kind souls" to help them. Sorry, xtian "charity" here has almost no history at all.

I don't find it amiss to restrict religious participation in government to allowing individiual worshippers to vote. If ministers wanna be political powers then their churches need to be registered as political parties and their incomes levied as incomes rather than some vague and basically meaningless sop to "establishment." The current legal framework appears to actually encourage the rights of "churches" to be political entities.

That Americans have this notion about what separation "means" that is totally off-base with what Madison thought about it surprises me none at all. Like I said, the lights went out here long ago and have never managed to come back on. Our "best" generation died with almost no intellectual progeny as it was overwhelmed by the backwoods tent-revivals and the growth of know-nothing religious fervor: witness Southern Baptist, Church of God and Church of Christ and their even more jerk-knee hivings-off.


Add to that the top-down Catholicism inherent in the viewpoints of waves of Italian, Irish, Latino and German immigrants and you've a pure recipe for a "state-religious" enterprise that has never been curbed at all. It simply goes on and on and is adjudged by most to be "the way it has to be."   
Nichole

soldierjane,
I would simply remind you that the church was performing marriages for almost 2,000 years before our government came into being.  The Jews have been at it for a good 3,000 more at least.  Given that fact, just who is appropriating and who is doing the "hostile takeover"?  The church does not owe its existence to the state and never will.  Are you aware that many congregations here in America predate the founding of the nation?  While I am not in favor of any kind of theocracy, you simply must allow for the fact that the government of the USA did not ever "give" rights to the church.  The constitution is is quite clear in its recognition of this pre-existing power.  As such it does much to preserve its powers without endorsing it.

Nichole,
I agree that Christians have done a pretty good job in the USA of persecuting themselves.  However, do know that historically, when the church has truly been persecuted, it has seen the greatest growth.  Be careful what you ask for.  ;)

I also have a problem with churches who have become political.  For instance, the African American churches has historically been one of the favorite stops for candidates.  I am not trying to sound prejudiced when I say this.  I have always thought it wrong.

I also agree that I would prefer a blood sacrifice who was willingly sacrificed.  If you'd like, sometime I will tell you about one.

Now, would you really like the influence of the church taken from American society?  I would never attempt to justify all of the history and would agree that mistakes have been made.  There are, however, some things you do seem to enjoy which are part of our Christian heritage, whether you know it or not.  Read about John Calvin and John Knox, the two great Christian reformers in Geneva and Scotland.  From them come the principles of religious freedom, representative democracy, and checks and balances.  In fact, when our new constitution was first displayed, one of the principle objections was that it was a "presbyterian"  form of government, meaning representative democracy.  Read about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran pastor who led the beginnings of the revolt against Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party.  Although he was killed for his work, much of his work survives, incuding the Barmen Declaration, which is one of the most incredible documents written supporting the separation of church and state.  Here is an exerpt:

"We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the State should and could become the sole and total order of human life and so fulfil the vocation of the Church as well.

"We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the Church should and could take on the nature, tasks and dignity which belong to the State and thus become itself an organ of the State."

Guess where these teaching came from??  From scripture.  Why not read it yourself:  http://www.ucc.org/faith/barmen.htm (http://www.ucc.org/faith/barmen.htm)

The freedom we are right this minute enjoying, to be freely discussing this matter, or even criticizing the government, is a direct result of the influence of the church.  Read the story of the Trail of Tears and see who stood the Choctaws.  Take away every Ivy League college (yes, they were all church founded) as well as Cal Berkley and many, many others.  Take away the vast majority of the hospitals in the world's greatest medical system, and let those who are treated by them just die. 

So let's see...do you want a nation without major universities, without most of its health care, without the intellectual freedom to criticize anything and everything?  If so, then by all means enjoy your world without the influence of the church.  I haven't even gotten to the scientists whose work affects each of our lives daily, who did their work precisely because of their Christian commitment.  But that is for another discussion.

Peace, all.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on December 02, 2008, 02:50:30 PM

I also agree that I would prefer a blood sacrifice who was willingly sacrificed.  If you'd like, sometime I will tell you about one.

Thanks, no. I've done all the reading there I wish to do. Besides, that rendition is what people managed to write about at least forty years after any fact was gone. The gospels and the letters of Paul present povs, often of wildly differing povs.

Quote... Read about John Calvin and John Knox, the two great Christian reformers in Geneva and Scotland.

Seriously? Yes, Calvin's Geneva and Knox's Scotland were hotbeds of tolerance and democracy. Take a look at the works, not just some high-blown writings done before the rubber met the road.

QuoteSo let's see...do you want a nation without major universities, without most of its health care, without the intellectual freedom to criticize anything and everything?  If so, then by all means enjoy your world without the influence of the church.  I haven't even gotten to the scientists whose work affects each of our lives daily, who did their work precisely because of their Christian commitment.  But that is for another discussion.

That an institution that has existed in more or less it's current form since Ireneaus of Lyon and his fellow bishops took charge of it in the early 2nd century has off-spring that managed to work their ways far from the planted seed is hardly amazing. No one suggested that historic influence be somehow made to disappear. That is simply impossible. As impossible as it was for the churches themselves not to use the models of Roman and Greek authority as the guidelines for their dioceses and arch-dioceses etc.

Yet, Oxford doesn't have monks in-charge anymore than Paris does or Bologna.

But traditions grow and are changed and I am sure there were similar laments among the philosophers when Justinian destroyed the School at Athens. To see a structure fall and be replaced by something else is simply the way of human history. The churches are as subject to that as any other human institution.

In the past certainly persecution made for more survivors of true believers, except when it didn't: the firebrands who souhgt martyrdom were not the ones who shaped the future church. The political closed-mouths who hid out were. So, the fires of martyrdom simply burnt the martyrs while the political realists shaped the faithful who remained.   


Our Senate is based on someone's idea of the Rman Senate, but there's a good deal of gap between the two and there's no direct connection between them.

Quote from: Nichole on December 02, 2008, 03:07:54 PM
Besides, that rendition is what people managed to write about at least forty years after any fact was gone. The gospels and the letters of Paul present povs, often of wildly differing povs.

On that, of course, we completely disagree.

Quote
Seriously?

Quite.

Quote
No one suggested that historic influence be somehow made to disappear. That is simply impossible.

On the contrary, that is precisely what seems to be suggested here (though likely not by you).  The working premise is that the church is a bad influence on society.  Let's just be honest about that.  Its influence should be eradicated if it is bad.

QuoteTo see a structure fall and be replaced by something else is simply the way of human history. The churches are as subject to that as any other human institution. ... In the past certainly persecution made for more survivors of true believers, except when it didn't: the firebrands who souhgt martyrdom were not the ones who shaped the future church. The political closed-mouths who hid out were. So, the fires of martyrdom simply burnt the martyrs while the political realists shaped the faithful who remained.   

Not so with the church.  This is very easy to prove historically but it would take more space than I would care to take here.  I do, however, have some reference works you could see, should you really be interested.

QuoteOur Senate is based on someone's idea of the Rman Senate, but there's a good deal of gap between the two and there's no direct connection between them.

Again, this is not historically accurate.  Yes, I would agree that there are some similarities.  But there are many more very important differences.  You might be interested to do a little word study on the Hebrew word "zaqen" and the Greek word "presbuteros" (both often translated elder)to see that this concept far predates Roman civilization.  And if you study the writings of Calvin and Knox (which I have quite extensively) you will see that these were precisely the concepts upon which they were building, not Roman ones.   Then read about Francis Mackemie, who started work around 1700 in the colonies, beginning to preach for religious liberty and against what he called the "establishment principle."  It is to this work that we owe our current freedom.

I am not asking anyone to believe what they believed.  But why is it that we seem prone to try to rewrite history?  Even if you do not share the faith of the church, why not give it credit for the positive ways in which it has shaped society, rather than just pointing out flaws which exist in the fringe element?

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on December 02, 2008, 02:50:30 PM
I would simply remind you that the church was performing marriages for almost 2,000 years before our government came into being.

Actually no.

Early Christians regarded marriage as a purely private affair between the two consenting individuals, based on declaration of their intention to marry and subsequent physical union. It was a verbal promise between the two, and neither a priest nor witnesses were required. The church only really became involved during the middle ages, where it's sole function was to  record marriages along with births, deaths, etc. (So really, they were simply fulfilling the role the state has since taken on)

Marriage as a "holy institution" only really got going as a result of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation each trying to upstage the other - The Roman Catholic church decreed at the Council of Trent that a marriage would only be recognised if officiated by a priest in the presence of two witnesses, basically to force people to stay within the Catholic faith.

So let's be honest here: Marriage, even only considered within the narrow confines of Christianity, is not some covenant before God, except insomuch as the two individuals make it so. It has always been a political and economic football, and for Christians to now turn around and say that the family and by extension all civilization itself is somehow threatened because marriage may once again become a civil contract, or be made a purely private matter, or because same-sex couples are given equal rights - well, that's BS, IMO.

Interestingly, though rare, same-sex marriages were legal in Rome until the emperor Constantius (Constantine's son) declared them illegal. So technically same-sex marriage pre-dates Christian marriage. ;)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage)

~Simone.

Quote from: lady amarant link=topic=50500.msg312852#msg312852

Actually no.

Actually yes!  Please check your sources.  It's no wonder that even Wikipedia disputes that information you cite.

You are, however, correct about Roman marriage (including same sex) predating Christian marriage.  It is a simple matter of looking at dates to figure out that the Roman Empire was here before Christ was even born.   So what?

Evidence exists from Tertullian (2nd century) and others that by his time Christian marriage had been a formal institution for some time.   This is not even to mention the witness of scripture.  In fact, I find it quite charming that Jesus' favorite social activity seems to have been a wedding.  Moreover, he performed his first miracle at a wedding.  But I digress.

So do you truly want to try to explain away thousands of years of history of weddings within Judaism?  Do you really want to try to explain away several thousand years of Jewish understanding of blood covenant (and its Christian counterpart)?  Good luck.  It is true that only the Catholic Church considers marriage a sacrament.  All others regard it highly but have never considered it a sacrament.  But to say that the reformation and counter-reformation were the first time the church was ever really involved in marriage is totally ludicrous.

While I do agree with you that families are in no way threatened by same sex marriage, it is so hard to understand why people will not try to come up with a good argument against Christian marriage, rather than trying to rewrite history. 

However, let's assume, for just a minute, that your information is totally factual (I know what a stretch that is).  You still would have the church in America predating the constitution by more than 200 years.  Whose claim is prior?

As far as the Council of Trent, church councils were generally called to respond to some new kind of heresy.  They were not perfect.  Look at the records.  You will find that they did not codify marriage there.  Instead, they reaffirmed what, to them, had been a very long standing tradition.  This is marriage with the classic elements we know even today:  a priest, witnesses, etc.  Are you aware that these are essentially the elements of blood covenant, as taught beginning in Genesis?  Do you see how old this tradition is, and how important it is even today in the the lives of those of a Judeo-Christian heritage?

FWIW, many countries have two separate rites, the civil and the government marriage.  This is probably a better system.  But for now, NO ONE has to get married in the church.  So why not just leave it alone, and tell them to do the same to you?

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: lady amarant on December 03, 2008, 03:15:38 AMonly considered within the narrow confines of Christianity

Kristi hon,

I wasn't trying to attack marriage as an institution, and an ancient one at that, I was merely saying that, under Christianity, it is a fairly recent legally binding thingee - I suppose we can argue how recent. My point is that marriage was, for a long time, a private affair that did not involve contracts and such, and that that is why there is a valid argument for same-sex marriage - by MAKING it an institution, the involved parties are afforded a number of rights and privileges. Denying those rights to others is absolutely discriminatory, and makes it mandatory for a society that protects equality to either afford those same rights to everybody or to remove them. That was essentially what was argued (and won) in South Africa's constitutional court, and that is why civil unions are in every way equal to marriages over here.

What I'm saying is that fine, marriage is something religion has first claim to, but in accepting the rights and privileges the state affords them under that institution, they must also necessarily cede some control over it.

PS. Sorry for the snippy "Actually no". It was uncalled for.

~Simone.

Simone, please understand I am not angry, except at the crazy society we live in.

We do agree that denying rights to any group of individual is discriminatory and should not happen.  I think our only disagreement is how best to go about it.  My answer is, and always has been, let the church do her thing, and let society do it own thing.  But recognize and respect each other in the process.  I just don't think that's too much to ask.

BTW, I think part of the confusion has to do with the fact that the whole idea of a civil power separate from a religious one is a quite modern phenomenon.  Religious oaths and vows under a theocratic system were considered valid because there was no other authority.   We still do not know how to deal with this legacy very well.

Peace,

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 07:47:15 AM
FWIW, many countries have two separate rites, the civil and the government marriage.  This is probably a better system.  But for now, NO ONE has to get married in the church.  So why not just leave it alone, and tell them to do the same to you?

But doesn't the entire problem stem from the Christian objection to just that idea?

I'm just unsure about something you said. Hope you could clarify:

Quotelet the church do her thing, and let society do it own thing

Are you saying then that marriage should be a religious institution only? Sorry, I'm not exactly sure HOW you mean this to work - If you've explained it before, please forgive, 'cause I admit that I haven't read everything that's been posted in this thread.

~Simone.

No, Simone.  Sorry if I was unclear.  I meant let society recognize the church's right to conduct weddings in the way they see fit, and let the church recognize greater society's right to legal marriages which do not fall inside its boundaries of what it considers acceptable.  Nobody has to lose anything.  FWIW, I hear what the fringe element is saying, but virtually all of the Christians I associate with do share this viewpoint.  Of course it is boring, not flashy, and certainly not newsworthy.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Emme on December 03, 2008, 10:12:22 AM

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 10:05:18 AM
No, Simone.&nbsp; Sorry if I was unclear.&nbsp; I meant let society recognize the church's right to conduct weddings in the way they see fit, and let the church recognize greater society's right to legal marriages which do not fall inside its boundaries of what it considers acceptable.&nbsp; Nobody has to lose anything.&nbsp; FWIW, I hear what the fringe element is saying, but virtually all of the Christians I associate with do share this viewpoint.&nbsp; Of course it is boring, not flashy, and certainly not newsworthy.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

I absolutely agree with this.&nbsp; I've never advocated "forcing" religions to perform ceremonies that are not in accordance with their beliefs.&nbsp; The issue I've come into with most Christians is the word "marriage."&nbsp; They may agree with your above sentiment Kristi, but they feel they have dominion over that word.&nbsp; And they refuse to consider anything having that word that isn't within their religious doctrine.&nbsp; And I've known a lot of people who said they could care less what you call it, just give me the same rights.&nbsp;

Lots of Christians aren't going to be fooled by us calling them "civil unions"... it's the idea they're opposed to, not the word "marriage" specifically.  They don't think homosexual unions should have the same legal benefits as their marriages, that it somehow demeans them.

Thanks for the clarification Kristi. I think we're pretty-much in agreement there. I don't believe in coercion of any way shape or form, and that would include forcing a religious grouping to go against its beliefs. As long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me (or the rest of society) either, I think all's right with the world.

I agree with Kaitlyn though - I think it's opposition to the whole concept of gay unions, and of gay people themselves that drives alot of religious people. (let's be honest, not just Christian) I read somewhere that another proposition is now being considered to limit the privileges partners in a gay civil union enjoy on the pretext that the state or county or something can't afford it for it's employees ... I'll try and find it unless somebody else knows the source.

EDIT: AHA! Found it:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8355 (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8355)

~Simone.

My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages.  Force everyone to go to a judge (or sea captain) to get the marriage made legal.  People should still be able to have ceremonies in churches, of course, but those ceremonies should have no legal effect.  I think that vesting clergy with legal authority on the basis that they are clergy violates separation of church and state by establishing religion, the Lemon test notwithstanding.

Quote from: glendagladwitch on December 03, 2008, 03:56:17 PM
My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages. 

Without repeating what I have previously said ad nauseum, the government can't take away what it did not and cannot grant or establish in the first place.  A serious chunk of our constitution would have to be removed first.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: glendagladwitch on December 03, 2008, 03:56:17 PM
My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages.  Force everyone to go to a judge (or sea captain) to get the marriage made legal.  People should still be able to have ceremonies in churches, of course, but those ceremonies should have no legal effect.  I think that vesting clergy with legal authority on the basis that they are clergy violates separation of church and state by establishing religion, the Lemon test notwithstanding.

As you know, I completely agree with Glinda on this. And yes, I know, Kris, you disagree. But I don't see how ministers are somehow constitutionally entangled in this. The entire amendment talks about separation, not convergence!

Nichole

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 04:14:08 PM

Quote from: glendagladwitch on December 03, 2008, 03:56:17 PM
My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages. 

Without repeating what I have previously said ad nauseum, the government can't take away what it did not and cannot grant or establish in the first place.  A serious chunk of our constitution would have to be removed first.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

What is it the clergy always say at the end of the ceremony?  Oh yeah, "by the authority vested in me by the State of ____________, I now pronounce you husband and wife."  This authority is the power to act on behalf of the State.  I don't care if clergy were performing marriages before the State started according them legal significance.  The vesting of authority by the state in the clergy IS something that the State granted or established, and it should be taken away.  Also, back in jolly old England, the clergy used to hold Court in Equity and had the power to resolve disputes over land and such.  Does that mean the State today should not be able to prevent the clergy from doing that?  Hell no!

You are correct, some clergy say that.  Some adamantly refuse to.  So take your pick.   And you are right about the church of England, which was essentially an Anglican Catholic model with an extremely powerful episcopacy.  Either way, I just cannot respect any argument which resorts to taking away rights and/or privileges from any class of people as its solution.  If you wish to accuse others of unfairness in your own struggle for equality, all well and good.  Just at least be consistent.  Either you believe in free rights or you do not.  Try to see this from the other side for just a moment:  "Sure you can get married in the church, it will just not be a legal union any more."  I realize it sounds good to you, but trust me, it is quite odious to those for whom this is an integral part of their faith.  Take this tack if you want, but you are playing right into the hands of those in the Christian who are feeling threatened by your assertion for equality.  In fact, they might just have a point.  And this I regret very much, because I have worked very hard for understanding between these (not mutually exclusive) groups.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Emme on December 03, 2008, 05:31:34 PM
You can't have your cake and eat it to.  This is essentially what I feel your argument is boiling down to.  If religious folks need to take one extra step to get married so that ALL people have marriage, I'd say that's better than leaving things as they are and allowing only some people marriage while outright denying others.  No one is denying religious folk their church ceremonies.  I hear France makes you have a civil ceremony before you can have a religious one, and so far they're still around.

Oooh cake.  Please make mine angel food! :angel:

France does indeed have this dual marriage.  What they do not have is our concept of separation of church and state.  They have a history of being dominated by a strong Roman Catholic monarchy until relatively recently in their history.  No thanks.

I still like our system better and believe it to be the most fair and equitable.  Just for clarification, and for the benefit of those in other countries, here in America, every couple who desires to be married must first get licensed by the state.  There are no exceptions.  Then and only then, they have their choice of a religious or non-religious ceremony.  That is our system, and I can't imagine what you see as unfair about that. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Ah am not so shore about this Jaysus feller. I mean, he's 33 and aint married, uh huh, a wink's as good a nod to blind bat, yessiree bob. And look who he hangs out with, a buncha dudes. Wears sandals and a bedsheet. Oh yeah, froo-teeee, if ya ask me. And he goes around tryin to make upstandin church bigwigs look bad. Love yer naybor, uh huh, he aint foolin nobody. Thats whut I thank.

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 05:22:57 PM
Either way, I just cannot respect any argument which resorts to taking away rights and/or privileges from any class of people as its solution.

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but that nixes any struggle for civil rights, for anyone.

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 05:22:57 PMIf you wish to accuse others of unfairness in your own struggle for equality, all well and good.  Just at least be consistent.  Either you believe in free rights or you do not.  Try to see this from the other side for just a moment:  "Sure you can get married in the church, it will just not be a legal union any more."  I realize it sounds good to you, but trust me, it is quite odious to those for whom this is an integral part of their faith.

It's always unpleasant for people to give up an unjust privilege they've taken for granted all their lives.  What does their discomfort have to do with the justice of it?

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 05:22:57 PMTake this tack if you want, but you are playing right into the hands of those in the Christian who are feeling threatened by your assertion for equality.

That's exactly it.  They're threatened by the idea of equality.  If they don't feel threatened, we're doing something wrong.

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 05:22:57 PMIn fact, they might just have a point.  And this I regret very much, because I have worked very hard for understanding between these (not mutually exclusive) groups.

What is that point, exactly?  That we make them uncomfortable, so we should stop?

Quote from: Emme on December 03, 2008, 10:06:45 PM

Quote from: Kristi on December 03, 2008, 08:26:23 PM

Oooh cake.  Please make mine angel food! :angel:

I still like our system better and believe it to be the most fair and equitable.  Just for clarification, and for the benefit of those in other countries, here in America, every couple who desires to be married must first get licensed by the state provided they are of the correct gender combinations, else they are denied outright.  There are no exceptionsexcept for people outside of the correct gender combinations.  Then and only then, they have their choice of a religious or non-religious ceremony.  That is our system, and I can't imagine what you see as unfair about that. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

This sounds more like it.

On that we agree that it should be changed.  If we work to change that, the rest will have taken care of itself.

QuoteI'm sure you don't mean it this way, but that nixes any struggle for civil rights, for anyone.

Of course that is not what I mean.

QuoteIt's always unpleasant for people to give up an unjust privilege they've taken for granted all their lives.  What does their discomfort have to do with the justice of it?

Of course it is.  And sometimes making people comfort is appropriate.  I'm not talking about their (our) discomfort.  I am talking about fairness.  I am talking about equality.  You say you want true separation of church and state?  Then give people a choice.  To take away some people's choice in favor of your own is neither just nor fair.  Please think that through.  As I have said, you could be next.

QuoteWhat is that point, exactly?  That we make them uncomfortable, so we should stop?

Remember the question that started this whole thing?  Will homosexuals silence America's Christians?  That is what I am talking about.  Being unfair and unjust and fighting to take away others' religious liberty simply because you disagree with it will not get the TG community where it needs to be.  I do believe a person can be tough and firm without being mean, nasty, and condescending.  And I believe that a consistent ethic of freedom is the only way to bring about a just society.

Peace,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on December 04, 2008, 09:07:48 AM
To take away some people's choice in favor of your own is neither just nor fair.

But that's exactly what I'm arguing against.  Why do Christians get to set the definition of marriage and have the state enforce it?  Why do people who aren't Christian, or who have different interpretations of Christianity, have to accept that definition?  If it's right and just for one religious group to enforce their definition of marriage, then why not enforce one definition of God while they're at it?

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 04, 2008, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: Kristi on December 04, 2008, 09:07:48 AM
To take away some people's choice in favor of your own is neither just nor fair.

But that's exactly what I'm arguing against.  Why do Christians get to set the definition of marriage and have the state enforce it?  Why do people who aren't Christian, or who have different interpretations of Christianity, have to accept that definition?  If it's right and just for one religious group to enforce their definition of marriage, then why not enforce one definition of God while they're at it?

Give some of them a chance and they've shown they will make the attempt!

Nichole

Quote from: Kaitlyn link=topic=50500.msg313421#msg313421

Why do Christians get to set the definition of marriage and have the state enforce it?  Why do people who aren't Christian, or who have different interpretations of Christianity, have to accept that definition?  If it's right and just for one religious group to enforce their definition of marriage, then why not enforce one definition of God while they're at it?

Are you really saying that it is only Christians who have the idea that the only legitimate marriage is between one man and one woman?  If you really believe this then I beg to differ.  Honey, that definition has a very long history both inside and outside the church.  It is the accepted societal norm, and the accepted model for most of the world's religions.  In this issue you are up against much more than just Christians.  If you want to change it, all well and good.  But you would do a lot better into putting your energy into making positive progress than helping to foster resentment between two parties.  It will take a lot of people talking to one person at a time until a difference is made.  It will not be easy, but I am convinced it can be done, and is being done.

FWIW, I agree that no legislation should define which God we believe in.  That should be a no brainer to us all.

Peace all,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Well, to answer the original question, are Christians being silenced?  Guess not.

Quote from: Kristi on December 04, 2008, 09:50:08 PM
Are you really saying that it is only Christians who have the idea that the only legitimate marriage is between one man and one woman?  If you really believe this then I beg to differ.  Honey, that definition has a very long history both inside and outside the church.  It is the accepted societal norm, and the accepted model for most of the world's religions.

I don't mean to make it sound like Christianity is some unique, horrible oppressor or anything like that... I just mention Christianity because that's where the vast majority of the opposition comes from, at least in America.

Quote from: Kristi on December 04, 2008, 09:50:08 PM
You would do a lot better into putting your energy into making positive progress than helping to foster resentment between two parties.

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I just don't understand how I'm supposed to change the minds of people who aren't basing their opinions on science or facts.  I hate getting into Scriptural debates, because I don't believe in God, and debating as if I do makes me a liar.  I can't argue morality or justice because that just links right back to religion.  I don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 05, 2008, 12:24:32 AM... I just don't understand how I'm supposed to change the minds of people who aren't basing their opinions on science or facts.  I hate getting into Scriptural debates, because I don't believe in God, and debating as if I do makes me a liar.  I can't argue morality or justice because that just links right back to religion.  I don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

Ditto. A friend of mine is terrified about coming out to her parents, and especially her mom, because she is convinced that she will be rejected because of it. Her belief that she'll be rejected stems from this conversation about her spiritual beliefs. (paraphrased)

QuoteMy Friend: I know you don't agree with me being a Wiccan mom, but I respect you as a Christian even though I don't agree with all of the teachings and beliefs you follow. Why can't you do the same for me? Why can't you respect my right to choose for myself, to be different from you?

Her Mom: Because you are possessed. Your choice is the path to the Devil, and I have to fight it.

That's the same kind of logic that drives people to slaughter entire cities, livestock included. How do you even begin to reason with that?

~Simone.

Quote from: tekla on December 04, 2008, 10:20:49 PM
Well, to answer the original question, are Christians being silenced?  Guess not.

Gee, you're all heart, Tekla.  I love you too.

QuoteI don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

This may be the most honest statement of this whole discussion, and the crux of the problem.  Of course you could change that if you want.  It would take dialogue and listening on both parts.  In short , it would take work.  It's a bit more difficult than just resentment, but it is well worth it.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

I don't have resentment, as much as I have 12 years before the mast in Catholic School.  Then a very liberal college.  Then grad school in science stuff at a big science school.  So its not a matter of no heart, hell, I lost heart in this stuff back in high school, somewhere in the middle of mass.

Nope, I've lost stomach for it too.  Look.  All sort of people, from all sorts of time have some sort of God deal, and some sort of 'this is how and why the world was created' stuff.  (Cosmology for short).  And you don't believe most of them.  Matter of fact you disregard every single one, but one.  That one is true to you, all the others false.

I just found room in my thinking for one more false cosmology, yours. 

Look, if you think that 99 out of 100 theories are wrong, that 99 out of 100 gods are wrong.  What's to keep me from going that extra 1% (hardly an Olympic effort or anything) and thinking that that other one has got some real serious flaws going for it too?

If religious people did not teach their children that there is only one possible "truth," and punish those children and anyone else who doesn't accept that truth, and then I don't think religious folks would be experiencing so much hostility from others.  If America's Christians are treated unfarily in the future, well, I think they have to look within to find the source of the problem.

Oh my god, its the most damn religious nation on earth, and its a christian nation at that.  No one is ever going to turn off that noise machine.  And I'll give a burnt offering or two to the deity that tells me how.

ADDED:  Look, I'll admit that its all me. I just dont' see it.  I don't see any divinity shaping our ends.  I don't see no cosmic justice in the world.  I don't see where good things don't happen to very bad people, and why the worst ->-bleeped-<- in the world falls on the people who can stand it the least.  I don't get it.  Perhaps that's just me.  I'm sure it is.  It's all in my mind after all.

But then again, it's all in your mind too, and you can't prove one iota of it.

Quote from: Kristi on December 05, 2008, 06:35:35 PM

QuoteI don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

This may be the most honest statement of this whole discussion, and the crux of the problem.  Of course you could change that if you want.  It would take dialogue and listening on both parts.  In short , it would take work.  It's a bit more difficult than just resentment, but it is well worth it.

Hmm, last I recalled a "crux" is a crossing that has two arms intersecting, no? I suspect that the converse of the quoted statement

QuoteI don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

is also true?

That being the case and neither arm having a common frame of reference with the other arm, I'm wondering if any amount of dialogue and listening is going to provide common frames of reference.

This thread certainly isn't providing me with the sense that either pov has enough reference in-common with the other to either listen to or engage with the other.

Although I think that the original question, about whether or not gays are gonna silence christians, has certainly been shown to be, at this point, not a major concern. But, I'm blonde.

Nichole

I'm pretty sure that invention number two, if the straight line was invention number one, was the cross.

What gets me down the most is when I DO try to speak with religious people from within their own frame of reference. But introduce a discussion about the council of Nicea, and they argue that God would have worked through all those bickering priests to make sure his word came through correctly. Same argument if you try to introduce alternate views on Christianity from Gnostic texts or the Apocrypha or whatever else. And again the same argument when you show them comparisons between the wording in original scriptures and the modern translations used today, or introduce the argument of context and word-meaning, or pretty-much anything else.

The Christians, (and Muslims, it must be added) that I have tried to talk to PURELY from a theological and historical standpoint have ONE response, one undeniable argument: That whatever translation or version of the holy scripture they follow is TODAY the word of God, that he has made so. Every other translation, every other version, past or present, is wrong. For whatever it is worth, I find that the limited interaction I've had with Buddhists and traditional Hindus tend to be more open and "inclusive", for lack of a better word.

Middle ground is there to be found between the religious and the secular, but if the religious do not even accept their own rich histories and traditions, how can one meet them halfway?

~Simone.

Quote from: Nichole link=topic=50500.msg314009#msg314009 da
This thread certainly isn't providing me with the sense that either pov has enough reference in-common with the other to either listen to or engage with the other.

Nichole

This will remain true only as long as you want it to.

Quote. Same argument if you try to introduce alternate views on Christianity from Gnostic texts or the Apocrypha or whatever else. And again the same argument when you show them comparisons between the wording in original scriptures and the modern translations used today, or introduce the argument of context and word-meaning, or pretty-much anything else.

Actually, some very much enjoy this kind of discussion.  In my circle we do, anyway.

QuoteMiddle ground is there to be found between the religious and the secular, but if the religious do not even accept their own rich histories and traditions, how can one meet them halfway?

I agree.  There is room for improvement in the honesty department all the way around.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on December 06, 2008, 07:48:34 AM
Actually, some very much enjoy this kind of discussion.  In my circle we do, anyway.

Perhaps I'm moving in the wrong circles then. ;)

I don't know Kristi, honestly, I've been fortunate enough to talk to one or two really knowledgeable, open-minded Christians online, but for the most part, and IRL, I've only ever had negative experiences. Some very strong ones. Absolutely, I concede that that colours my own opinions, and that does bleed through into my arguments when things get hectic in a debate. It just sometimes feels like, while there are many Christians out there who do know their religion and are willing to discuss things openly and honestly, and are willing to accept difference, that the vast majority are scary. And honestly, that is what I feel. I am afraid of Christianity, of another Inquisition, or the Burning Times happening again, or more Holy Crusades.

I'm sorry for anything I've said that's offended you.

~Simone.

Quote from: Kristi on December 06, 2008, 07:48:34 AM

This will remain true only as long as you want it to.

Which makes my point quite well. The onus is forever presumed by christians to be on the other to meet them. Kris. 

What would be the effect of "your wish" in all this? You seem to consistently find the problems all in the other end of the court.

So, yes, I will continue to find it useless to talk with any christian to the right of --- UCC.

Nichole

This topic has been interesting reading.  I don't comment much, as I can't see where my position hasn't already been covered and discussed by those who share views similar to mine.

I wanted to make this post to the topic to say:

I'm really impressed that this divisive topic has remained for the most part thoughtful.  I wish that all discussions on divisive topics would use this topic as an example of how it can be done.

Kudos!

Karen

Quote from: Nichole on December 06, 2008, 11:12:52 AM
Which makes my point quite well. The onus is forever presumed by christians to be on the other to meet them. Kris. 
What would be the effect of "your wish" in all this? You seem to consistently find the problems all in the other end of the court.
So, yes, I will continue to find it useless to talk with any christian to the right of --- UCC.
Nichole

Not so, dear Nichole.  Truth be known, I tell the same thing to both sides.  You will have to trust me on that, but I do have plenty of chances to.  Here is what I see:  Both sides lined up, really wanting (except for the extreme elements on both sides) to talk and understand one another.  But neither will make the first move.  And each standing there blaming the other for not moving first.  No one would be caught dead moving first!  So who do I blame?  Everybody!  No, I don't find the guilt only at one end.  Have you been reading what I have written?  There is plenty of blame to go around.  Can we stop that game and just determine to move forward?  As one who belongs in both worlds, I would so desperately love to.  But it is so very obvious that many don't.  If that's the case, everything I write will do nothing but frustrate you.

I am just so saddened to see so many (yes, on both sides) who would rather spend their energy hating, accusing, and blaming.  We only have a limited quantity of energy in this life, and that is a really poor use of it. 

Yes, I do blame the bigots on both sides.  I blame the hypocrites on both sides:  The ones who speak of tolerance and acceptance for everyone, then turn around and exclude other based on their religious views; the ones who speak of the love of God and  study the life of Christ and claim to be his followers, while hurling judgment against the very kind of people he hung around while he was on earth.  Yes, I'm repulsed and sickened by all of it.

So sit around and gripe if you wish.  We are all here to stay.  That will not change.  Go ahead and mire in the blame game.  It is safe and even politically correct.  I, for one, choose to make a difference when I can.  I am acutely aware that few wish to join me.  But if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. 

Peace,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

History has shown that it is just unrealistic to expect that everyone can just all get along, especially where religion is involved.  And religion simply cannot be trusted with the reigns of political power.  Too much harm is done.  Much less harm is done when religion is forced to butt out of government.  And the "perceived harm" experienced by Christions and Muslims and so forth not being permitted to express their opinions to young children about ->-bleeped-<-s and ->-bleeped-<-s is much less than the "actual harm" done by the expression of such sentiments to the young and impressionable.  I don't have to be an extremist to think that religion needs to be silenced in the future quite a bit more than it has in the past.  And I'm not going to reach any kind of agreement with religious folks to the contrary.  Why is a dialogue needed?  These types of matters can only ever be resolved by force.