# Gay Rights



## Bullgrit

Originally posted on my blog back in January:

*****
Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender folks — I’m fine with them all. I don’t really give any thought or care about a person’s sexual preference, orientation, or identity. I’ve known only a few openly gay folks in my life, and although one was kind of creepy, (like a sleazy lounge lizard kind of guy), the others were just normal people, normal acquaintances or friends. There may be others in my immediate world that are gay and I just don’t know it. And really, that’s the way it should be; that’s the way normal people are. No normal person, heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual, lives their life with their sexuality printed on their shirt, as if the world just has to know it and accept it in their face. I’ve never personally met the stereotypical, flamboyant gay or butch lesbian, even when I spent a whole evening at a gay/lesbian night club.

I’ve never harassed anyone I thought was gay, at least definitely not to their face. When I was a young and dumb teenager, yes, there was name calling among friends. But that wasn’t really accusations or attacks on their real sexuality any more than using other words meant we thought each other were female dogs or had unmarried parents. Young guys are just jerks to each other. It’s dumb, but it’s the nature of male puberty.

I would not stand by and watch someone be harassed by a bully, whether for their sexuality or skin color or any other reason. And I’d think very low of anyone who did allow harassment in front of them, not to mention I consider those who do harass are total scum.

I have no problem with gay men marrying each other, or lesbian women marrying each other. I don’t see how their marital status affects me at all. But the argument over “gay rights” does confuse me a bit. When I hear how gays are denied rights in the U.S., I wonder what rights do I have that a gay man does not? From all the arguments I’ve heard, it seems that “gay rights” is just a synonym for “gay marriage,” but saying “rights” makes it sound like a much broader and deeper situation. All the rights that the LGBT pundits claim are restricted from gays are those rights that come with marriage. So it seems that the one item, gay marriage, would bring all those other rights. Right?

*****

What are your thoughts about "gay rights"? Would allowing gay marriage generally solve all the gay rights issues?

The link in the above post goes to the story* of my experience at a gay/lesbian night club, (when I was 21 years old, in 1988). How would you feel about going to such a club as a heterosexual?

Bullgrit

* Is safe for work/grandma friendly.


----------



## Morrus

The term broadly includes things like blood donation, adoption, non-discrimination laws, immigration, age of consent laws, legal recognition of gender reassignment, laws relating to military service, and hate crimes.

In the US, the highest profile issue is gay marriage.  Though there are many other issues of tolerance, inclusiveness, and acceptance, the marriage issue is the big one.  

As a more general worldwide term, it refers also to intolerant countries where many other rights are also denied. Wikipedia tells me 73 countries have criminalized homosexuality.

Last month, Ireland became the first country in the world to allow same-sex marriage via popular vote (referendum).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bullgrit said:


> I’ve never personally met the stereotypical, flamboyant gay or butch lesbian....




I have.  Some were nice people, some were not.  Whodathunkit?




> What are your thoughts about "gay rights"? Would allowing gay marriage generally solve all the gay rights issues?




Not even close.  That's just the second major battle- post-Stonewall rights to not be beaten up was first- in their quest for equality.  More battles will come.

They need employment fairness: you might not be fired from the military anymore, but not all states protect gays from being fired for their orientation.

They need housing fairness: you can still be evicted from your rental property for being gay in some states.

They need fairness in adoption: some places, homosexuality is a bar to adoption.

They need protection in death: wills in favor of gay lovers have been successfully challenged by family members in court and tossed out on the grounds of "undue influence", "lack of testamentary ability".  In one shameful Texas case, the court tossed out the decedent's will and voided several prior versions (covering decades) that left the entire estate to the surviving significant other to hand the estate over to the surviving family who had ostracized the deceased.



> How would you feel about going to such a club as a heterosexual?




When I was 18 and didn't know better, I'd probably have freaked outa little.  But a year later, not so much.  By age 20, I'd say any homophobia I had was pretty much burned out of me because of the out gays I had met in that period of time.  In this case, at least, familiarity bred acceptance.

That said, I'm not a fan of seeing hypersexualized public displays of affection and nudity, straight or gay.  Keep your face-devouring & crotch grinding in private, please.






For those keeping score: I'm a cradle Roman Catholic, still practicing my faith.


----------



## Ryujin

My thoughts are that the old maxim applies: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

I don't particularly care what consenting and competent adults do with each other. It's none of my business, unless someone chooses to make it my business. On many occasions I've been the official photographer for a charity event in support of a local rape crisis centre, as a volunteer. I'd estimate that fully 50% of the people involved are other than heterosexual. I wouldn't know that if they hadn't made it clear in conversation, over the years. I live my life. They live theirs. We get along fine because neither side tries to tell the other how to live.

When it comes to "gay marriage", the con side's reasons always seem to somehow relate back to religious doctrine. As someone who thinks that government has no place in religion I have an easy solution; say that your government has no position on marriage. The word simply doesn't exist to government. All that should matter, from a government standpoint, is that a contractual obligation exists between the people involved. Want to get married? Go nuts. Just sign and register that contract with the government, because that whole marriage thing isn't in our lexicon.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> As someone who thinks that government has no place in religion I have an easy solution; say that your government has no position on marriage. The word simply doesn't exist to government. All that should matter, from a government standpoint, is that a contractual obligation exists between the people involved. Want to get married? Go nuts. Just sign and register that contract with the government, because that whole marriage thing isn't in our lexicon.




Isn't that just changing the name, though?  After all, a marriage is - in essence -  a legal contract, though happens to be surrounded by a swathe of cultural stuff.


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> Isn't that just changing the name, though?  After all, a marriage is - in essence -  a legal contract, though happens to be surrounded by a swathe of cultural stuff.




Yes and no. If you'll pardon the pun, it divorces it from the religious institution of marriage. This, in my view at least, removes any objection on religious grounds.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

As is often the case in these discussion, the "T" in LGBT gets forgotten.

Transgender folks are denied basic healthcare in many places, even here in the U.S.  We face often insurmountable employment barriers.  We can be fired for being transgender.  Most damning, in every state but California, the "trans panic" defense still holds up in court when it comes to getting away with murdering us.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> Yes and no. If you'll pardon the pun, it divorces it from the religious institution of marriage. This, in my view at least, removes any objection on religious grounds.




You can have marriages without religion easily enough though. My marriage was non-religious (though it had Imperial Stormtroopers present). The marriage part (absent any ceremonial stuff you choose to surround it with) was a legal process.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> All that should matter, from a government standpoint, is that a contractual obligation exists between the people involved.



Actually, that's been kinda the law on the USA for a while, but nobody noticed it until gays wanted to join the party and conservatives squawked in protest.  I expect that's how the SCOTUS will rule, too.

I mean, marriage hasn't been the exclusive thing for religion since we started letting judges, captains at sea and others perform them.  And just try getting married in the USA without state permission in the form of licenses...even IN a church.

And, as I recall, (most of) the common law stuff doesn't mention gender.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> As is often the case in these discussion, the "T" in LGBT gets forgotten.
> 
> Transgender folks are denied basic healthcare in many places, even here in the U.S.  We face often insurmountable employment barriers.  We can be fired for being transgender.  Most damning, in every state but California, the "trans panic" defense still holds up in court when it comes to getting away with murdering us.




No doubt, y'all have the hardest path to follow out of the LGBT community.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> Yes and no. If you'll pardon the pun, it divorces it from the religious institution of marriage. This, in my view at least, removes any objection on religious grounds.




Except that those who have religious objections don't seem to accept that.

We aren't talking about the right for gays to get married *in a church*, or in a religious ceremony.  We are talking about their right to get married *at all*.  

At the moment, in many states, a gay couple cannot go to the courthouse and get married - which is exactly the legal contract you speak of.  It already exists, but is denied these people.

I submit that the issue is only tangential to religion.  Some folks are homophobic.  This is not directly related to their religious affiliations, as there are quite devout people of the same denominations who don't have these attitudes.  Religion is being used as a rationalization and support to justify the inability to accept gay folks, and the social connections that often go with religion add to the social-pressure to not accept them.


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> You can have marriages without religion easily enough though. My marriage was non-religious (though it had Imperial Stormtroopers present). The marriage part (absent any ceremonial stuff you choose to surround it with) was a legal process.




Understood but, at least in North America, it always seems to come down to social conservative/religious folk talking about the "damage" to the "religious institution" of marriage. Remove the words and NewSpeak that problem away. Let the people involved call it whatever they want but, from a legal standpoint, it's just a government recognized contract.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, that's been kinda the law on the USA for a while, but nobody noticed it until gays wanted to join the party and conservatives squawked in protest.  I expect that's how the SCOTUS will rule, too.
> 
> I mean, try getting married in the USA without state permission in the form of licenses.  Even (most of) the common law stuff doesn't mention gender.




< sarcasm > 
Well OF COURSE! After all, marriage is between a consenting man and the woman he chooses, isn't it? So God says. Why would anyone ever think otherwise and make it necessary to codify the obvious truth in law?
< / sarcasm >


----------



## Kramodlog

Bullgrit said:


> There may be others in my immediate world that are gay and I just don’t know it. And really, that’s the way it should be; that’s the way normal people are. No normal person, heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual, lives their life with their sexuality printed on their shirt, as if the world just has to know it and accept it in their face. I’ve never personally met the stereotypical, flamboyant gay or butch lesbian, even when I spent a whole evening at a gay/lesbian night club.




I dispute this as the norm that no one talks about sex. I worked with heterosexual blue collar workers who talked about their sex lives and sexual prowess frequently. It wasn't that special to hear. Same with heterosexual male friends who talked about who they slept with recently and what they did to the woman they slept with or just discuss porn. 

Sex talk might seem invisible because it is heterosexuals talking to heterosexuals about hetero sex. No one is wearing their sexuality on their sleave when doing that, right? Well, no.

It is a bit like questions of racism. Being white it might seems non-sensical to believe that racism is a big problem in this day and age, but it is just because they do not face it. It is invisible to them, but it is a real thing to black people trying to find housing or get more call-backs when trying to find jobs.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> Except that those who have religious objections don't seem to accept that.
> 
> We aren't talking about the right for gays to get married *in a church*, or in a religious ceremony.  We are talking about their right to get married *at all*.
> 
> At the moment, in many states, a gay couple cannot go to the courthouse and get married - which is exactly the legal contract you speak of.  It already exists, but is denied these people.
> 
> I submit that the issue is only tangential to religion.  Some folks are homophobic.  This is not directly related to their religious affiliations, as there are quite devout people of the same denominations who don't have these attitudes.  Religion is being used as a rationalization and support to justify the inability to accept gay folks, and the social connections that often go with religion add to the social-pressure to not accept them.




And yet that's the most common reason cited, when you get right down to brass tacks; they get all worked up over a _word_. Of course my solution would also require the removal of any sex related wording in law (and, incidentally, the subsequent removal of any government employee who refused to do his job under the law), but it should be eminently possible.

Remove as many of these rationalizations as possible and all that you have left is a bunch of people who want to stop others from living their lives as they see fit, but can only sputter while looking for a valid reason.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> Remove as many of these rationalizations as possible and all that you have left is a bunch of people who want to stop others from living their lives as they see fit, but can only sputter while looking for a valid reason.




I would say they are already sputtering for a valid reason.  

Depending how the SCOTUS rules, it may shortly cease to be an issue in the US.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> I would say they are already sputtering for a valid reason.
> 
> Depending how the SCOTUS rules, it may shortly cease to be an issue in the US.




I certainly hope so. For my part there are two things that I don't find palatable, that are political hot-button topics, but as I am unlikely to ever be in a homosexual relationship nor be in need of an abortion, I do not see any reason why my personal preferences should have an effect on the lives of others.


----------



## Bullgrit

> I dispute this as the norm that no one talks about sex. I worked with heterosexual blue collar workers who talked about their sex lives and sexual prowess frequently. It wasn't that special to hear. Same with heterosexual male friends who talked about who they slept with recently and what they did to the woman they slept with or just discuss porn.



It's interesting how vastly different our cultural experiences can be even though we are generally in a very similar cultures (US and Canada, not France and Iran, for instance).

I worked retail and restaurant jobs in high school and college. After college, I've worked in white collar jobs for 20+ years. My circle of friends through the years have been in similar positions. Though sex talk did come up occasionally (rarely), it wasn't at all common or the norm. Not that we are all prudes, just we're more likely to talk about movies or books or games, (as kids, teens, adults, and parents). I wouldn't be comfortable in conversations like in the above quote, and I would, (and have, now that I remember a couple of times), probably actively avoid someone who regularly carried on about the subject.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> And yet that's the most common reason cited, when you get right down to brass tacks; they get all worked up over a _word_. Of course my solution would also require the removal of any sex related wording in law (and, incidentally, the subsequent removal of any government employee who refused to do his job under the law), but it should be eminently possible.
> 
> Remove as many of these rationalizations as possible and all that you have left is a bunch of people who want to stop others from living their lives as they see fit, but can only sputter while looking for a valid reason.




The problem is, there are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations intersecting with the marriage laws.

Far easier from a legal drafting and cost-efficiency standpoint to define marriage in a gender-neutral fashion.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> It's interesting how vastly different our cultural experiences can be even though we are generally in a very similar cultures (US and Canada, not France and Iran, for instance).
> 
> I worked retail and restaurant jobs in high school and college. After college, I've worked in white collar jobs for 20+ years. My circle of friends through the years have been in similar positions. Though sex talk did come up occasionally (rarely), it wasn't at all common or the norm. Not that we are all prudes, just we're more likely to talk about movies or books or games, (as kids, teens, adults, and parents). I wouldn't be comfortable in conversations like in the above quote, and I would, (and have, now that I remember a couple of times), probably actively avoid someone who regularly carried on about the subject.
> 
> Bullgrit




I was in the Navy back when I was under the mistaken impression that I was a dude.  Some of the stereotypes regarding the Navy (and the military in general) have basis in fact and one of them is rampant and casual homophobia, at least among submarine sailors.  The sex-talk was near constant and overwhelmingly sexist.  I avoided it as much as I could but there is pressure to "fit in" to such an extent that it can affect whether you get promoted.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Bullgrit said:


> What are your thoughts about "gay rights"?



That I can't believe it is still an issue. But it is one. And there's a lot of work to be done, apparently, with religious freedom laws (etc.) being enacted.


Bullgrit said:


> Would allowing gay marriage generally solve all the gay rights issues?



No, but it'd seal the change in society. The nation would undoubtedly move in a direction of dealing with other rights issues.


Bullgrit said:


> The link in the above post goes to the story* of my experience at a gay/lesbian night club, (when I was 21 years old, in 1988). How would you feel about going to such a club as a heterosexual?



I've done it. I've gone to gay clubs (the crowded dancing / drinking type) with my female friends. I'm hetero. It was fine, and I had fun. Would do again.



Morrus said:


> My marriage was non-religious (though it had Imperial Stormtroopers present).



Also: awesome.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Some of the stereotypes regarding the Navy (and the military in general) have basis in fact and one of them is rampant and casual homophobia, at least among submarine sailors. The sex-talk was near constant and overwhelmingly sexist.



I can imagine, and I don't doubt, how it is in that kind of environment. But would you say that is representative of the norm in general society?



> Though there are many other issues of tolerance, inclusiveness, and acceptance



Are these "rights"? Things to be enforced by laws? I can see forcing tolerance, but inclusion and acceptance? You may have to tolerate your neo-nazi neighbors, but do you have to include and accept them?



> rights to not be beaten up



Don't gays [everyone] already have this right? 



> They need employment fairness: you might not be fired from the military anymore, but not all states protect gays from being fired for their orientation.
> 
> They need housing fairness: you can still be evicted from your rental property for being gay in some states.
> 
> They need fairness in adoption: some places, homosexuality is a bar to adoption.



I'll take your word for this, as you are the lawyer. I didn't realize these were still problems, because I haven't heard of an incident of these in, like 20 years. I mean, I see/hear/read/know about gays having jobs, living in rentals, and adopting babies, but I don't the discrimination.

Bullgrit


----------



## JamesonCourage

Bullgrit said:


> It's interesting how vastly different our cultural experiences can be even though we are generally in a very similar cultures (US and Canada, not France and Iran, for instance).
> 
> I worked retail and restaurant jobs in high school and college. After college, I've worked in white collar jobs for 20+ years. My circle of friends through the years have been in similar positions. Though sex talk did come up occasionally (rarely), it wasn't at all common or the norm.



I'll just throw in my experience on this, too.

First job: Sex talk came up a lot.
Second: Rarely did, but it did.
Third: Never came up.
Fourth/Fifth*: Came up frequently.
Sixth: Came up occasionally (though relationships were discussed more).

*I don't count my job at FEMA (technically between my fourth and fifth job), as I was fired after one week for being too lenient/generous.


----------



## Bullgrit

> They need protection in death: wills in favor of gay lovers have been successfully challenged by family members in court and tossed out on the grounds of "undue influence", "lack of testamentary ability". In one shameful Texas case, the court tossed out the decedent's will and voided several prior versions (covering decades) that left the entire estate to the surviving significant other to hand the estate over to the surviving family who had ostracized the deceased.



I knew about this kind of thing. And rights regarding patient healthcare. And child/parenting rights. Etc. These are the kinds of things that I figured would be cured with allowing gay marriage, because without marriage, gay relationships are no different than normal hetero boyfriend/girlfriend relationships -- a girlfriend wouldn't be allowed to make decisions for an unconscious boyfriend in the hospital, etc.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bullgrit said:


> Don't gays [everyone] already have this right?




Legally, yes.  Functionally?  Not really.  

I knew a guy who got drummed out of the Army in the 1990s for being bisexual.  He was in Ranger training,mand second only to the instructor in hand-to-hand combat skill.  When his orientation was revealed, some of his fellow training groups thought it would be a good idea to beat him up.

Over the ensuing weeks, he put each attacker in the hospital. MEventually, the commander issued an order to leave him alone...

But AFAIK, except for their time in physical rehab, not one of those trainees was disciplined for their assault on a fellow soldier.

There was a police raid on a gay nightclub here in Dallas/Fort Worth a few years ago.  Several patrons were injured.  It took quite a while before appropriate discipline was even considered, much less meted out.



> I'll take your word for this, as you are the lawyer. I didn't realize these were still problems, because I haven't heard of an incident of these in, like 20 years. I mean, I see/hear/read/know about gays having jobs, living in rentals, and adopting babies, but I don't the discrimination.



It really does vary state by state.

Bonus fact: did you know that in 7 states, it is illegal for atheists to hold public office?  Not that that could survive a constitutional test, IMHO, but nobody has challenged those laws yet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bullgrit said:


> I knew about this kind of thing. And rights regarding patient healthcare. And child/parenting rights. Etc. These are the kinds of things that I figured would be cured with allowing gay marriage, because without marriage, gay relationships are no different than normal hetero boyfriend/girlfriend relationships -- a girlfriend wouldn't be allowed to make decisions for an unconscious boyfriend in the hospital, etc.
> 
> Bullgrit




Would that it were so.  But each distinct area of the law will probably engender its own struggles.  After all, just because you're married to the person who left you a bunch of money in a will doesn't mean that others can't or won't challenge that will.  Ask Anna Nicole Smith's lawyers.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> I can imagine, and I don't doubt, how it is in that kind of environment. But would you say that is representative of the norm in general society?
> Bullgrit




Anecdotal observation - when you have a mostly single-gender environment (submarines were men-only up until about a year ago and I think the integration is still being delayed, though I'm not current on the news regarding that), some of the societal taboos are relaxed, thus allowing true feelings, opinions, and behaviors to be exhibited.  The homophobia that's kept on a bit of a leash among mixed company is unleashed when they don't feel they are being judged.  So, I would say, yes, it is representative of what's lying just under the surface.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There was a police raid on a gay nightclub here in Dallas/Fort Worth a few years ago.  Several patrons were injured.  It took quite a while before appropriate discipline was even considered, much less meted out.




Yes, well, we seem to have a general problem with discipline of police officers, which is probably the subject of another thread.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The problem is, there are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations intersecting with the marriage laws.
> 
> Far easier from a legal drafting and cost-efficiency standpoint to define marriage in a gender-neutral fashion.




When you make a band-aid fix, you have patchwork results. Doing things right is rarely easy, but it's still best.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> When you make a band-aid fix, you have patchwork results. Doing things right is rarely easy, but it's still best.




I don't think using a different word than "marriage" is going to help.  At all.

We are talking about people who are literally fighting against what they view to be a redefinition of what "marriage" is.  Don't you think they'll catch this one out?


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> I don't think using a different word than "marriage" is going to help.  At all.
> 
> We are talking about people who are literally fighting against what they view to be a redefinition of what "marriage" is.  Don't you think they'll catch this one out?




Sure, but when it comes to government it would no longer be an issue. My main goal here is to get government out of the middle of what "those people" try to conflate as being a religious issue. You've got to start somewhere and, to me, that's where to start.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> Sure, but when it comes to government it would no longer be an issue. My main goal here is to get government out of the middle of what "those people" try to conflate as being a religious issue.




As I said before, the religious angle is a rationalization.  The real issue is homophobia.  Taking away the word "marriage" to a purely religious relationship still leaves all the actual rights associated with marriage on the civil contract.  And homophobes don't want gays to have those rights.

They already know that their religious arguments don't mean anything in court - so they aren't using religious arguments in court.  They have arguments about child rearing and families instead.  And those still hold if you change the word.  Thus, no gain in changing the word.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

But you can't get gov't out of marriage.  The gov't is already irrevocably interwoven into it.  It is a Constitutional right, after all.  And it changes tax rules.  And inheritance rules.  And liability rules.  And the rules of criminal evidence.  And...and...and...

Either you have to rewrite the rules for everything including a perfect synonym for marriage- creating a distinction without a difference and a buttload of litigation until all the rules are successfully redrafted- or you simply explicitly define marriage as what it is: a contract between adults.

Not that this is novel- some ancient cultures treated it on a non-religious legal basis as well...not to mention as a political tool.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> As I said before, the religious angle is a rationalization.  The real issue is homophobia.  Taking away the word "marriage" to a purely religious relationship still leaves all the actual rights associated with marriage on the civil contract.  And homophobes don't want gays to have those rights.
> 
> They already know that their religious arguments don't mean anything in court - so they aren't using religious arguments in court.  They have arguments about child rearing and families instead.  And those still hold if you change the word.  Thus, no gain in changing the word.




And I disagree. As pointed out by others, the "religious freedom laws" are sprouting up all over. It's a valid point for attack on ignorance.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> But you can't get gov't out of marriage.  The gov't is already irrevocably interwoven into it.  It is a Constitutional right, after all.  And it changes tax rules.  And inheritance rules.  And liability rules.  And the rules of criminal evidence.  And...and...and...
> 
> Either you have to rewrite the rules for everything including a perfect synonym for marriage- creating a distinction without a difference and a buttload of litigation until all the rules are successfully redrafted, or you simply explicitly define marriage as what it is: a contract between adults.
> 
> Not that this is novel- many ancient cultures treated it on a non-religious legal basis as well.




Is it? I don't recall reading the word "marriage" in The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, though I may be mistaken. I do recall, however, the term "pursuit of happiness" being used.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Not all constitutional rights are explicitly enumerated- you have to look to the court cases.  In the case of marriage, look at the _Loving_ decision of 1967.  That's the one that struck down anti-miscegenation laws.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: religious freedom laws

The original Federal one was designed to protect from government interference with religious practice absent an important governmental interest.

Specifically, it was to ensure that things like the Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of 2 Native Americans who used peyote in a religious ceremony.  Nevermind that Christians managed to legally have alcohol during prohibition- these defendants weren't Christians, so Scalia didn't sympathize enough to extend analogous rights.  They are an aegis against government overreach.

Most of the current crop of controversial RFAs are different beasts.  They explicitly excise protective language included in the FRFA, and as such are not shields against the government.  Instead they're drafted to be used as a sword against private or government enforcement of government anti-discrimination laws. They create exceptions that swallow the rule.


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> Is it? I don't recall reading the word "marriage" in The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, though I may be mistaken. I do recall, however, the term "pursuit of happiness" being used.




While you may have a written constitution, it is by no means the entirety of your constitutional law.  A country's constitution is a big, complex thing, the existence of a high-profile "The Constitution" notwithstanding.  Constitutional law - in every country - is a heck of a specialty for a lawyer!  It's not a case of reading a dozen or so items on a single document. We can all do that!


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> While you may have a written constitution, it is by no means the entirety of your constitutional law.  A country's constitution is a big, complex thing, the existence of a high-profile "The Constitution" notwithstanding.  Constitutional law - in every country - is a heck of a specialty for a lawyer!  It's not a case of reading a dozen or so items on a single document. We can all do that!




Well when someone refers to something as a "Constitutional Right" I look to the document that they named, not the mountains of case law generated in 200+ years. If the statement had been "upheld as a Constitutional Right", then I'd have looked elsewhere


----------



## Morrus

Ryujin said:


> Well when someone refers to something as a "Constitutional Right" I look to the document that they named, not the mountains of case law generated in 200+ years.




And that's why you pay lawyers.  What you do is not what a lawyer does.


----------



## billd91

Ryujin said:


> Sure, but when it comes to government it would no longer be an issue. My main goal here is to get government out of the middle of what "those people" try to conflate as being a religious issue. You've got to start somewhere and, to me, that's where to start.




You would be wrong in your assessment. In 2006, when Wisconsin, to its shame, passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it included a provision to ban anything *like* marriage as well. And that would include exactly what you think these religious opponents of marriage would accept - a parallel institution with the same legal rights. Allowing homosexuals anything like the privilege of marriage was seen as just as damaging to the institution of marriage. The jealous protection of privilege really knew no bounds.


----------



## Ryujin

billd91 said:


> You would be wrong in your assessment. In 2006, when Wisconsin, to its shame, passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it included a provision to ban anything *like* marriage as well. And that would include exactly what you think these religious opponents of marriage would accept - a parallel institution with the same legal rights. Allowing homosexuals anything like the privilege of marriage was seen as just as damaging to the institution of marriage. The jealous protection of privilege really knew no bounds.




Time for a stronger Federal Government system.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

And there it is.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage-122495807066.html

Now, we enter into the "Jim Crow" era of gay marital rights, as opponents try to construct workarounds, like granting religious rights to object & refuse, trying to take the state out of the marriage business, etc.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And there it is.
> https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage-122495807066.html
> 
> Now, we enter into the "Jim Crow" era of gay marital rights, as opponents try to construct workarounds, like granting religious rights to object & refuse, trying to take the state out of the marriage business, etc.




Just read that on HuffPost. Good to see.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And there it is.
> https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage-122495807066.html




Danny, have you seen analysis on what the legal basis for the ruling is?  The article you linked seems to say the basic argument is the 14th amendment, "Equal Protection" clause.


----------



## Bullgrit

NPR this morning had a piece on the controversy of a Gay Pride Parade in Korea. I wonder if such parades are more harmful to gays than if they just openly lived "normal" lives. I mean, I came to be accepting of gays by seeing they are just normal people, rather than by seeing flamboyant, queer (weird) people parading in the public. When the media shows clips of any pride parade, they always show the most shocking examples of the culture on display, and that supports the idea that "those people are different than us normal people."

I'd be embarrassed if a Southern Pride Parade was just a chance for a bunch of ignorant, drunk rednecks to strut about living up to the negative stereotype.

Bullgrit


----------



## Joker

Bullgrit said:


> NPR this morning had a piece on the controversy of a Gay Pride Parade in Korea. I wonder if such parades are more harmful to gays than if they just openly lived "normal" lives. I mean, I came to be accepting of gays by seeing they are just normal people, rather than by seeing flamboyant, queer (weird) people parading in the public. When the media shows clips of any pride parade, they always show the most shocking examples of the culture on display, and that supports the idea that "those people are different than us normal people."
> 
> I'd be embarrassed if a Southern Pride Parade was just a chance for a bunch of ignorant, drunk rednecks to strut about living up to the negative stereotype.
> 
> Bullgrit




Nascar isn't a parade.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> NPR this morning had a piece on the controversy of a Gay Pride Parade in Korea. I wonder if such parades are more harmful to gays than if they just openly lived "normal" lives.




I don't think the pride parades are for you.  Not everything a gay person does is about getting their acceptance among heterosexuals.  Sometimes, they do things for themselves.  And that's okay.


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> NPR this morning had a piece on the controversy of a Gay Pride Parade in Korea. I wonder if such parades are more harmful to gays than if they just openly lived "normal" lives. I mean, I came to be accepting of gays by seeing they are just normal people, rather than by seeing flamboyant, queer (weird) people parading in the public. When the media shows clips of any pride parade, they always show the most shocking examples of the culture on display, and that supports the idea that "those people are different than us normal people."
> 
> I'd be embarrassed if a Southern Pride Parade was just a chance for a bunch of ignorant, drunk rednecks to strut about living up to the negative stereotype.
> 
> Bullgrit




So... you'll be fine, just shut up and don't remind us you're here? I don't think that's directly what you're advocating, but it doesn't seem far off. I'm not gay so I can't speak for anyone who is gay who participates in pride parades, but I think there's a value in standing up and being visible when you've traditionally been closeted away. It forces society to show and, hopefully, confront its attitudes about the underprivileged group celebrating their very existence. It strikes at the very heart of privilege - the privilege those of us heterosexuals have to be as open with our sexuality as we want and that homosexuals traditionally haven't had.

If you think there are too many images of the excesses of flamboyance, and there may be, you should think about the media's role in all of this. They are in the business of drawing viewers so they can show them ads so they're going to show you whatever sensational stuff they think will draw your eyes to them rather than their competitors. So they show the most flamboyant stuff, and that also sells a narrative, particularly if the media outlet has an axe to grind. I'm reminded of the way some parts of the media portrayed pro-union protests here in Wisconsin back in 2011. A certain "news" network showed violent images of the purported protest (some of which I attended) but the image had palm trees in the background and I can assure you there are no palm trees growing around Wisconsin's capitol building. They wanted to deliberately sell a narrative to their viewers to keep their asses in their seats. The media will do that with gay pride parades too, so keep that in mind when you think you're seeing excessive flamboyance.


----------



## billd91

Joker said:


> Nascar isn't a parade.




Sure it is. It's just very fast and repetitive and they sometimes throw crash debris instead of candy.


----------



## Morrus

Bullgrit said:


> NPR this morning had a piece on the controversy of a Gay Pride Parade in Korea. I wonder if such parades are more harmful to gays than if they just openly lived "normal" lives. I mean, I came to be accepting of gays by seeing they are just normal people, rather than by seeing flamboyant, queer (weird) people parading in the public.




What's wrong with being flamboyant in public?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Danny, have you seen analysis on what the legal basis for the ruling is?  The article you linked seems to say the basic argument is the 14th amendment, "Equal Protection" clause.



Haven't had the time to look in depth- and I may not- but that is my understanding.


----------



## Kramodlog

Pride parades and pride related events are important for the LGBT community because so many people tell them they should be ashamed of who they are and what they like or should just stay hidden under a rock.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> What's wrong with being flamboyant in public?




Excellent question.  For geeks - consider SDCC (or any convention know for its cosplay).  Pretty darned flamboyant, and in public.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

And, like Cosplay, pride parades aren't for everyone in the community celebrating itself.


----------



## Kramodlog

I have to say Thomas' dissent is perplexing to say the least. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook




So the Jews in extermination camps didn't lose their dignity? That man is a sad joke and needs to lose his job. Can that happen under US law?

Edit: Scalia ain't any better. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia


----------



## Bullgrit

> So... you'll be fine, just shut up and don't remind us you're here?



No. Note I said *openly* live. Please don't put words in my mouth, nor twist my words to mean something completely different. 

Looks like this issue is another case of "you must be completely all in acceptance of all of this or you must be completely all in opposed to all of this." Can one not look at the issue and see mostly good, but point out a few possible problems?



> What's wrong with being flamboyant in public?



Nothing for the individual. But if you are participating in something as a representative of a greater group for the overall purpose of garnering general acceptance by the general public, doing things to stand out as "weird" (distinctly different than normal) doesn't engender general acceptance by those who see that as weird.

Which is likely to bring comic book fans more acceptance as a generally normal culture?
This:





or this:





We, on the inside of the culture, see those cosplayers as fun fans, having fun. We even celebrate them. To people on the outside of the culture, (20 years ago), they are weird, loser, geeks. Comic geekdom has become far more accepted/mainstream because the general public has seen that we aren't all the negative stereotypes that media used to portray us as. 

And I truly think gays have become more accepted in general society than they used to be because "normal" people have seen enough "normal" gays in their life to learn that the "we're here and we're queer!" types aren't the normal representatives of a gay person. Kids coming out to their parents nowadays don't put the fear in their parents of them suddenly completely changing into a flamboyant drag queen.

Which is a better representative for "gay pride"?
This:





or this:





Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit

For the record: I find those flamboyant participants in gay pride parades hilarious, because I, too, have a good sense of humor, and I'm not bothered by gayness (in both senses of the word). But I'm already sold on the idea that homosexuality is not a problem in any way. But I know there are plenty of other people in our culture that have a hard time coming to accept it, and I'm just saying that I think trying to sell it through "in your face", sometimes almost militant gay pride might not be the best way to sell a concept.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog

If you want "weird" and marginal to be seen has "normal", it ain't going to happen if you hide what is "weird" and marginal. Exposure to different things is how people learn to get use to them and they become the "new normal".


----------



## Morrus

Bullgrit said:


> For the record: I find those flamboyant participants in gay pride parades hilarious, because I, too, have a good sense of humor, and I'm not bothered by gayness (in both senses of the word). But I'm already sold on the idea that homosexuality is not a problem in any way. But I know there are plenty of other people in our culture that have a hard time coming to accept it, and I'm just saying that I think trying to sell it through "in your face", sometimes almost militant gay pride might not be the best way to sell a concept.




There comes a point where you stop saying "please, sir, accept me" and instead you say "whether you accept me or not, this is how it is, and there's nothing you can do about it". 

A pride march is not asking; it's telling.  It's a statement, not a request, and it's made in a public, noticeable way. People take thousands of different approaches - legal, cultural, institutional - but there isn't an overall strategy guided by some central body.  So some people march, some fight for legislation, some make movies, some make inclusive RPGs, some just live happy lives.

Whether it's working or not?  I think evidence suggests that it is.  Today's court ruling in the US says that it is; last month's referendum in Ireland says it is.  And flamboyant people - of any culture, nation, sexuality, gender, or age - are just that: flamboyant people. 



> Which is likely to bring comic book fans more acceptance as a generally normal culture?




That's not why people cosplay.  People cosplay because it's fun, not to send cultural messages.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> But if you are participating in something as a representative of a greater group *for the overall purpose of garnering general acceptance by the general public*, doing things to stand out as "weird" (distinctly different than normal) doesn't engender general acceptance by those who see that as weird.




(bold emphasis mine)  And, as I suggested above - have you considered that maybe that isn't the purpose of the parade?  



> Which is likely to bring comic book fans more acceptance as a generally normal culture?




But, while it is public, conventions are *NOT* about getting the general populace to accept geeks.  They are not public-relations efforts.  They are for geeks to celebrate and revel in their geekdom. 

So, apply that to the parade.  The parade isn't about folks who aren't gay!


----------



## Alzrius

Umbran said:


> Danny, have you seen analysis on what the legal basis for the ruling is?  The article you linked seems to say the basic argument is the 14th amendment, "Equal Protection" clause.




This isn't analysis, but for anyone who wants to read the opinion itself, it can be found here. It's fairly easy to understand, rather than being the wall of "legalese" that I think people expect from the highest court in the land.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

My only comment for today...

WOOHOO!

That is all.


----------



## Bullgrit

> have you considered that maybe that isn't the purpose of the parade?



Well, I've been told, years ago, by two different people, that that was the purpose of the parade, (one of whom did participate in such a parade). Essentially, (paraphrasing from memory), "Hey, we're here, we're real people, we're not monsters."

From wikipedia [bold, mine]:


> Gay pride or LGBT pride is the positive stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people to *promote their self-affirmation, dignity, equality rights, increase their visibility as a social group, build community*, and celebrate sexual diversity and gender variance.




Google: purpose of gay pride parade

What's the Point of Pride Marches"But we've abandoned their initial purpose as a call for equality for all LGBT people."

Now maybe I am completely wrong about the purpose/use of the pride parades. But, that's the purpose I've always seen/assumed in it, and it's a purpose others (outside the community) see in it. If it is a wrong interpretation, organizers and participants maybe should be more clear with their message. [Quesion mark]

My thoughts on it, has always been on the line of, [attempt at humor]"If you want me to be your friend, why do you always want to bring along your embarrassing cousin with you?" [/humor]

I also wouldn't attend a NASCAR race with a group that want to rip off their shirts on camera to show off their beer bellies painted with their favorite driver's number. (I've never actually been to a NASCAR race, with or without painted beer bellies.)

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> I have to say Thomas' dissent is perplexing to say the least. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
> 
> View attachment 69014
> 
> So the Jews in extermination camps didn't lose their dignity? That man is a sad joke and needs to lose his job. Can that happen under US law?
> 
> Edit: Scalia ain't any better. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia



There is no official process by which you can formally remove a justice from the court, though it imagine that being found legally incompetent would do it.  (Not joking.)

Like him or not, Scalia used to be capable of writing well-reasoned judicial opinions.  I don't see that anymore.  He's becoming more and more of an ideologue and less of a jurist.  

Thomas I didn't think much of during his confirmation hearings, and I've thought less of him every year since.  My grandfather asked me during those hearings of my opinion of the man.  I said that there were a lot of more qualified jurists in the pool than he, and he was picked as a Trojan Horse.  He asked what I meant.

I said that the GOP won either way with him.  If he was not confirmed, the GOP could claim it put forth a qualified minority justice who didn't pass muster, and move on- probably to someone more to their liking: more conservative, more Caucasian.  Bork 2, if you will.  If confirmed, they'd have a conservative minority jurist on the court, and-considering his level of experience- one who would be very likely to vote lock-step with the other conservatives on the court.

In his silent tenure on the court, he's essentially proven me correct.

You want to see a REAL intellectual and ethical conservative judge who isn't afraid to vote against his political beliefs, look at Richard Posner.  It's a crime NEITHER side has ever nominated the man.  The man is Solomonic.


----------



## Bullgrit

Bullgrit


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> Well, I've been told, years ago, by two different people, that that was the purpose of the parade, (one of whom did participate in such a parade). Essentially, (paraphrasing from memory), "Hey, we're here, we're real people, we're not monsters."
> 
> From wikipedia [bold, mine]:
> 
> 
> Google: purpose of gay pride parade
> 
> What's the Point of Pride Marches"But we've abandoned their initial purpose as a call for equality for all LGBT people."
> 
> Now maybe I am completely wrong about the purpose/use of the pride parades. But, that's the purpose I've always seen/assumed in it, and it's a purpose others (outside the community) see in it. If it is a wrong interpretation, organizers and participants maybe should be more clear with their message. [Quesion mark]
> 
> My thoughts on it, has always been on the line of, [attempt at humor]"If you want me to be your friend, why do you always want to bring along your embarrassing cousin with you?" [/humor]
> 
> I also wouldn't attend a NASCAR race with a group that want to rip off their shirts on camera to show off their beer bellies painted with their favorite driver's number. (I've never actually been to a NASCAR race, with or without painted beer bellies.)
> 
> Bullgrit




I see a meme floating around on social media fairly frequently about beer belly painted football fans mocking cosplayers...

I am firmly of the opinion that everyone should have the right to enthusiastically celebrate who they are, who they love, and (in the case of fandoms, whether sports or comics or whatever) what they love.

We should all be able to shout to the world about what we love and not be judged for it.  

Being "acceptable" or "polite" or "quiet" is for the meek.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> If you want "weird" and marginal to be seen has "normal", it ain't going to happen if you hide what is "weird" and marginal. Exposure to different things is how people learn to get use to them and they become the "new normal".




This is an excellent point.  If you stay in the closet about who you are, then who you *actually* are cannot be accepted.


----------



## Bullgrit

> We should all be able to shout to the world about what we love and not be judged for it.



Insert photo of neo-nazi rally.

Insert photo of klan rally.

Insert photo of NAMBLA convention.

Insert photo of furry sex party. 

No, I'm not comparing gay pride with any of the above. What I'm illustrating without an illustration ('cause I ain't about to Google any of that from work) is I bet most people who say that above quote don't actually fully back it up for *everyone*. What we should say, is, "We should all be able to shout to the world about what we love, and if needed, we should explain why what we love is lovable so it is judged positively." Gays have had a long and hard go of this explaining for positive judgement, but they have made good progress.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> This is an excellent point.  If you stay in the closet about who you are, then who you *actually* are cannot be accepted.




And it applies to all sort of things. Remember when men with long hair or with earings weren't "normal". 

And don't get me started on present day swimsuits. This is what a normal lady wears at the beach. 

[sblock][/sblock]


----------



## Bullgrit

> If you want "weird" and marginal to be seen has "normal", it ain't going to happen if you hide what is "weird" and marginal. Exposure to different things is how people learn to get use to them and they become the "new normal".



My point is not that weird should be seen as normal, but rather the normal should be seen as, "yes, indeed these are just as normal as every other normal." Are gays weird? Or are they normal? I see the normal gays as normal, the weird gays as weird -- same as with normal gamers and weird gamers. I'm not even suggesting hiding the weird members of a society/culture. I'm just saying maybe don't use the weirder ones as the poster children for the normal ones (gays or gamers or celebrities or CEOs or accountants).

If I were going to set up a reporter with a role playing group to introduce him/her to the culture, I wouldn't set him/her up with a LARP group playing an evil campaign in the steam tunnels under the university. Those guys may be fun and have a great time, but it shows really bad for trying to get RPGs accepted into the mainstream.

Bullgrit


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> Insert photo of neo-nazi rally.
> 
> Insert photo of klan rally.
> 
> Insert photo of NAMBLA convention.
> 
> Insert photo of furry sex party.
> 
> No, I'm not comparing gay pride with any of the above. What I'm illustrating without an illustration ('cause I ain't about to Google any of that from work) is I bet most people who say that above quote don't actually fully back it up for *everyone*. What we should say, is, "We should all be able to shout to the world about what we love, and if needed, we should explain why what we love is lovable so it is judged positively." Gays have had a long and hard go of this explaining for positive judgement, but they have made good progress.
> 
> Bullgrit




The first three of those things "celebrate" hate.  That last one unfairly mocks a group of people who seem to be the current target for acceptable bullying.  Sort of like the old, "Its ok to be a gamer unless you're a LARPer."  Its not ok, especially on a day like today.

Today is about love, not hate.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Remember when men with long hair or with earings weren't "normal".



Because men with long hair and earrings weren't culturally/societally "normal" (business men, store clerks, doctors, etc.). Long hair and earrings became accepted as normal once "normal" men started doing it. When people saw that a guy growing his hair long didn't turn into a hoodlum, long hair became acceptable.

If people see gays as the stereotypical cross-dressing drag queen, they fear that their child/friend "becoming" gay leads to that. If they see gays as just like them, then a child/friend saying, "hey, I'm gay," just leads to, "ok, you're still you."

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit

> That last one unfairly mocks a group of people who seem to be the current target for acceptable bullying.



But you're ok with my mocking Southerners and NASCAR? [And doesn't NAMBLA have "love" in it's very name? I can't believe I'm talking about NAMBLA.] I just assumed we probably didn't have any furry sexers around here. If we do, I apologize for picking on them. I'll stick to picking on my own culture.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> If people see gays as the stereotypical cross-dressing drag queen, they fear that their child/friend "becoming" gay leads to that.




And, if they see a bunch of cross-dressing drag queens*, and realize that they are *harmless*, they stop worrying about them.  If they never see drag queens, they will never come to understand them, and will thus always fear them.  If you come to realize that the extreme end is harmless, then certainly the moderate version won't be a worry.



*As opposed to those drag queens who don't cross-dress?  Redundant phrasing.


----------



## trappedslider

So, now that same sex marriage is legal will the gay rights activist now work on getting Bigamy legalize? What about polygamy? And those who wish to marry in the family? Or was it not really about marriage equality for all,but just for them?


----------



## Kramodlog

Bullgrit said:


> Because men with long hair and earrings weren't culturally/societally "normal" (business men, store clerks, doctors, etc.). Long hair and earrings became accepted as normal once "normal" men started doing it. When people saw that a guy growing his hair long didn't turn into a hoodlum, long hair became acceptable.
> 
> If people see gays as the stereotypical cross-dressing drag queen, they fear that their child/friend "becoming" gay leads to that. If they see gays as just like them, then a child/friend saying, "hey, I'm gay," just leads to, "ok, you're still you."
> 
> Bullgrit




It is the same thing. People discovered guys with long hair are ok and they'll discover that stereotypical cross-dressing drag queens (who aren't necessarely homosexuals) are ok too, and it won't bother them that their kid becomes one. Like parents do not freak out when a boy has long hair. Well most of them anyway.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> But you're ok with my mocking Southerners and NASCAR? [And doesn't NAMBLA have "love" in it's very name? I can't believe I'm talking about NAMBLA.] I just assumed we probably didn't have any furry sexers around here. If we do, I apologize for picking on them. I'll stick to picking on my own culture.
> 
> Bullgrit




I never said I was ok with mocking anyone.    As for NAMBLA - you brought it up.  If you don't want to discuss (I certainly don't), then don't.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> But you're ok with my mocking Southerners and NASCAR? [And doesn't NAMBLA have "love" in it's very name? I can't believe I'm talking about NAMBLA.]




Allow me to rephrase - the Nazis, KKK, and NAMBLA *cause harm to people* - they are all groups defined by _abuse_.  Mocking them is thus in the realm of, "They deserve it".

Furries, on the whole, are about consensual relations and aren't hurting anyone.  They are a small fringe group without power.  Mocking them is kicking a small dog.  Not very cool.

Southerners and NASCAR are beyond big dogs, and are up around the size of cattle.  Mocking them is kicking a bull.  It probably won't notice, but you are doing so at your own risk, as it is quite capable of defending itself against a kick, thank you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Allow me to rephrase - the Nazis, KKK, and NAMBLA *cause harm to people* - they are all groups defined by _abuse_.  Mocking them is thus in the realm of, "They deserve it".
> 
> Furries, on the whole, are about consensual relations and aren't hurting anyone.  They are a small fringe group without power.  Mocking them is kicking a small dog.  Not very cool.
> 
> Southerners and NASCAR are beyond big dogs, and are up around the size of cattle.  Mocking them is kicking a bull.  It probably won't notice, but you are doing so at your own risk, as it is quite capable of defending itself against a kick, thank you.



Especially Nazi Super Cattle:
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-herd-of-nazi-cows-into-sausages-9958988.html


----------



## Bullgrit

> Kiraya's Korner - A safe place for LGBTQ+ gamers - find me on Patreon - KirayaTiDrekan



What's the Q and + mean in LGBTQ+?



> And, if they see a bunch of cross-dressing drag queens*, and realize that they are *harmless*, they stop worrying about them.



If you want someone to learn how to dive into a pool, you start with a low height. You don't force them off the 20' height, then say, "See, you survived, so you know jumping from the edge will be easy."



> As opposed to those drag queens who don't cross-dress? Redundant phrasing.



I know. I was trying to make sure the image was clear.



> who aren't necessarely homosexuals



I know. 

But anyway. Overall, society seems to be coming to accept homosexuality as the LGBT(Q+ ?) proponents are handling it. I'm just wondering if the coming around could be faster with my suggestions. I have known some people in my life who probably would have accepted it sooner if they saw more "normal" and less "weird" earlier on.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> What's the Q and + mean in LGBTQ+?




Q is for "queer" and/or "questioning" depending who you ask.  The + is for "other", which may include many alternate sexualities or orientations.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> What's the Q and + mean in LGBTQ+?
> 
> Bullgrit




The LGBT acronym has become slightly problematic as more orientations, identities, and genders are recognized and added to it.  At last count, the full version was LGBTQQIAAP (I think; even I'm losing track) - which stands for...

Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
Queer
Questioning
Intersex
Agender
Asexual
Pansexual

I think I'm missing a couple.  The point is, I use LGBTQ+ as a shortcut, fully acknowledging that it isn't ideal and diminishes certain orientations, genders and identities.  MOGAI is a more inclusive alternative, standing for Marginalized Orientations, Genders And Intersex but I'm not a fan of it as I hope that the word "Marginalized" won't be one associated with LGBTQ+ people in the near future.


----------



## Janx

Morrus said:


> Isn't that just changing the name, though?  After all, a marriage is - in essence -  a legal contract, though happens to be surrounded by a swathe of cultural stuff.




I think it's more of a matter that if you're going to insist Marriage is a religious institution then the government must refuse to recognize it.  period.  Jerks can't have their cake and eat it too. Basically, if you're going to insist that some folks can't get married, then nobody gets to be married.


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> Basically, if you're going to insist that some folks can't get married, then nobody gets to be married.




That seems to be the basis of today's decision - the 14th Amendment has the "Equal Protection" clause.  If you allow something to one person under the law, you cannot disallow it to another without some significant governmental need.


----------



## Bullgrit

I thought "queer" was general homosexual, so I thought the LGB covered that. "Questioning" seems a bit odd, to me. Is that the period before coming to grips with one's LGB... identity, or is it something more long term/permanent?

Agenger, asexual, and pansexual, I understand.

Intersex?

****

As for my picking on a small group -- I shouldn't have, I agree. (And I usually don't, in general.)

But I learned something about picking on even large subjects a long time ago from my then best friend:

My friend was about 6'2" and 250#. I hit him in the arm (as stupid teen boys sometimes do). He winced and said "ouch." I said, "But you're so big." He replied, "It still hurts."

Sometimes we forget things and do/say dumb and regrettable stuff to make funny.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91

trappedslider said:


> So, now that same sex marriage is legal will the gay rights activist now work on getting Bigamy legalize? What about polygamy? And those who wish to marry in the family? Or was it not really about marriage equality for all,but just for them?




Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.

Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> I thought "queer" was general homosexual, so I thought the LGB covered that. "Questioning" seems a bit odd, to me. Is that the period before coming to grips with one's LGB... identity, or is it something more long term/permanent?
> 
> Agenger, asexual, and pansexual, I understand.
> 
> Intersex?
> 
> ****
> 
> As for my picking on a small group -- I shouldn't have, I agree. (And I usually don't, in general.)
> 
> But I learned something about picking on even large subjects a long time ago from my then best friend:
> 
> My friend was about 6'2" and 250#. I hit him in the arm (as stupid teen boys sometimes do). He winced and said "ouch." I said, "But you're so big." He replied, "It still hurts."
> 
> Sometimes we forget things and do/say dumb and regrettable stuff to make funny.
> 
> Bullgrit




You are pretty much correct on Questioning - they are the folks who are unsure of their sexuality or orientation and are exploring their identities.  For some, the questioning stage results in affirming an identity, for others they remain fluid and/or questioning.

Intersex are folks born with no sexually identifying genitalia or with multiple sexually identifying genitalia.  The archaic and offensive term for this was hermaphrodite.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

All that, plus bigamy/polygamy throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into legal constructs all across the spectrum.  There are valid state reasons not to allow either.


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> No. Note I said *openly* live. Please don't put words in my mouth, nor twist my words to mean something completely different.




I'm not sure it is completely different. You're expressing skepticism of people letting their freak flag fly whether it's flamboyant gayness or the full frontal nerdity of cosplay. Conform. Blend in. Don't rock the boat. Be more like the broader culture so they'll like you more. But where does the line get drawn? What level of non-conformity is acceptable? What level of conformity will make you comfortable? Why should you, or society at large, get that much of a say in the level of conformity people need to exhibit?


----------



## trappedslider

billd91 said:


> Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.
> 
> Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.




I'm not saying slippery slope,i'm saying don't use phrases  like " marriage equality" if it's only going to be for a segment of the population. So you want to deny those who chose to be married to more than spouse the legality to do so?  That doesn't sound very equal to me.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> All that, plus bigamy/polygamy throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into legal constructs all across the spectrum.  There are valid state reasons not to allow either.




IF it were to ever happen the system would get fixed i'm sure.


----------



## billd91

trappedslider said:


> I'm not saying slippery slope,i'm saying don't use phrases  like " marriage equality" if it's only going to be for a segment of the population. So you want to deny those who chose to be married to more than spouse the legality to do so?  That doesn't sound very equal to me.




Nor does one person having a stable of spouses. And that's the rub.


----------



## tomBitonti

goldomark said:


> I have to say Thomas' dissent is perplexing to say the least. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
> 
> View attachment 69014
> 
> So the Jews in extermination camps didn't lose their dignity? That man is a sad joke and needs to lose his job. Can that happen under US law?
> 
> Edit: Scalia ain't any better. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia




He does seem to go off the rails in the quoted text.

Hard to know what he is meaning when he says "dignity", but I'm guessing he is tending to a very literal definition, and using that meaning in a context where it doesn't fit.

For example, I could say that "life" is an "inalienable right".  Then, with a literal meaning of "inalienable", it literally cannot be taken away from you.

What I think that is taken to mean is that one who takes life commits a wrong, and the government cannot change the taking into something that isn't wrong.

Then, a camp cannot take away a persons right to dignity, although, it does take away their dignity.  I'm thinking that Roberts is interchanging "right to dignity" with "dignity".

Thx!

TomB


----------



## trappedslider

billd91 said:


> Nor does one person having a stable of spouses. And that's the rub.




Not their fault you can't find more than one person who wants to marry you


----------



## Bullgrit

> I'm not sure it is completely different. You're expressing skepticism of people letting their freak flag fly whether it's flamboyant gayness or the full frontal nerdity of cosplay. Conform. Blend in. Don't rock the boat. Be more like the broader culture so they'll like you more. But where does the line get drawn? What level of non-conformity is acceptable? What level of conformity will make you comfortable? Why should you, or society at large, get that much of a say in the level of conformity people need to exhibit?



You're talking about the individual, I'm talking about the culture. Micro, macro. If a broad culture wants to be accepted as normal, they *maybe* shouldn't let the minority "freaks" lead the way.

Sure, the freaks are part of the overall culture (every culture has it's own freaks), and they are harmless, and they don't need to hide or be hid. But, as I feel like I've said a hundred times, if you're trying to get accepted as normal in the "normal" culture, show that you are generally just as normal.

Actually, from what I've seen of the LGBT community (both leadership and average person), they seem to be all "normal." But when you see, think of, and web search for gay pride parades, the freak-flag-flyers seem to be forefront. This is why I questioned the use, purpose, and results of pride parades.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> I thought "queer" was general homosexual, so I thought the LGB covered that.




Yes, but some folks like having a catchall.  Others use it to denote attraction to the same sex, but not otherwise conforming to the the mainstream sexuality monikers.



> "Questioning" seems a bit odd, to me. Is that the period before coming to grips with one's...




...sexuality in general.  Someone who has not figured out yet where they fit, of even if they want to fit in a group.  Especially if one is realizing that some of one's thoughts come from exterior influences, rather than oneself - for that can generate internal conflicts.



> Intersex?




Having sexual anatomy that doesn't fit the basic "male" or "female" labels.


----------



## tomBitonti

billd91 said:


> Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.
> 
> Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.




This always seems to come up when we discuss same sex marriage in one of my gaming groups, from one particular person.  I'm in agreement with what you just said, but never can quite get it across.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Bullgrit

> The archaic and offensive term for this was hermaphrodite.



I had no idea that term was out of date or offensive. Granted, I've very rarely heard or used it, ever. When did that happen? And what made it offensive?

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

trappedslider said:


> So you want to deny those who chose to be married to more than spouse the legality to do so?  That doesn't sound very equal to me.




Ah.  I see.  What you need to remember is that they weren't fighting for a fundamentally different legal structure, but for equal application of the *existing* structure.  

Poly-marriage would require a fundamentally different legal structure, and so is a completely different issue.



> IF it were to ever happen the system would get fixed i'm sure.




From a legal/governmental angle, marriage is very much about clarifying who you choose to have certain rights, privileges, and authorities.  Poly-marriages, however, do not clarify these questions.  If you have two spouses, and you fall into a coma, who makes healthcare decisions for you?  That's not at all clear.  Thus, there's a solid governance-reason to not allow such - because they are not clearly governable.

That all said, it is possible that, some time in the future, poly-marriages will be worked out and allowed.

However, going back to your original question - no, the gay rights activists aren't going to go work on this, and that's not hypocrisy.  It is okay for people to work as advocates of their own causes, but not then go and advocate other people's causes.  If, for no other reason, there are too many causes in the world - as a practical matter, each person must pick and choose what causes to fight for, as there aren't enough hours in a lifetime to fight for *all* of them.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> I had no idea that term was out of date or offensive. Granted, I've very rarely heard or used it, ever. When did that happen? And what made it offensive?
> 
> Bullgrit




Honestly, I don't much of the specifics.  I try to stay informed, but I am not an expert.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> You're talking about the individual, I'm talking about the culture. Micro, macro. If a broad culture wants to be accepted as normal, they *maybe* shouldn't let the minority "freaks" lead the way.




Dude, a once-a-year parade does not qualify as "leading the way" for an overall movement.  



> But, as I feel like I've said a hundred times, if you're trying to get accepted as normal in the "normal" culture, show that you are generally just as normal.




So, the other 364 days a year, when the vast majority of those "freaks" publicly look just like everyone else, and are probably serving you lattes and doing your legal paperwork and you wouldn't know it, does not count as showing that they are generally normal?  They must comply to norms *ALWAYS* to count as showing they are generally normal?  Even that one parade is too much?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

trappedslider said:


> IF it were to ever happen the system would get fixed i'm sure.




Not sure it could be, not with feasibility, anyway.  Again, the problem arises from how many laws interact with the keystone definition of "marriage".

Who is your next of kin?  

Who is the legal guardian of the children?  

Who is considered a natural heir under private law?  Probate law suddenly gets very messy.

How do you apply marital privilege to multiple marriages?  When the law specifies a paricular % of something- say, a survivor's benefit as a set percentage of salary- goes to a spouse, is that per spouse or to all spouses in aggregate?

Divorce law.  Child support law.  Adoption law.  

Thousands upon thousands of moving parts...


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> Dude, a once-a-year parade does not qualify as "leading the way" for an overall movement.
> 
> So, the other 364 days a year, when the vast majority of those "freaks" publicly look just like everyone else, and are probably serving you lattes and doing your legal paperwork and you wouldn't know it, does not count as showing that they are generally normal?  They must comply to norms *ALWAYS* to count as showing they are generally normal?  Even that one parade is too much?




I can think of one hell of a lot of heteros I really wouldn't want leading the way for anything I was involved in, when they 'let their freak flag fly.'


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Very often, it is the "freaks" - the visible folks who make people notice them - who lead the way in the fight for equality.  Many of us are quiet and just want to live our lives, relying on the "freaks" to pave the way for that to happen.


----------



## trappedslider

From Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”


----------



## Bullgrit

> Dude, a once-a-year parade does not qualify as "leading the way" for an overall movement.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page5#ixzz3eDFIEjBJ





> So, the other 364 days a year, when the vast majority of those "freaks" publicly look just like everyone else, and are probably serving you lattes and doing your legal paperwork and you wouldn't know it, does not count as showing that they are generally normal? They must comply to norms *ALWAYS* to count as showing they are generally normal? Even that one parade is too much?
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page5#ixzz3eDFN7Z5V



Sigh. No. Really, am I being this difficult to understand? 

If a group, any group, takes one day a year to celebrate themselves, their culture, their lifestyle, their biology, their "thing", whatever, to say, "Hey world! This is us! This is who we are!", and the main thing the world sees on that day, in that presentation, is mostly something over the top, something not only not-normal for the general world, but not even normal for that specific culture, then isn't that poorly representing the group?

For many small groups, flying the freak flag on a special day doesn't hurt them, because the world already knows and accepts them. But with a group that is already too often vilified or thought of very negatively, flying the freak flag front and center on the special day they've chosen to represent themselves just adds fuel for those who wish to burn them. 

I've seen people point to the pride parade as an example of what "those people" are like. I'm just saying, if a group wants to avoid the stigma of being weird, take note that some things that group allows to be represent itself is seen as weird. 

All this is based on the idea that the pride parade is actually considered a time for all gays to stand up and represent the gay community in a positive light, to gain general societal acceptance. If the pride parade is, instead, a day to get freaky and weird freely, then great, go for it. But then no one should complain that some non-gays think gays are freaky and weird.

We various geeks have our days and places to get freaky and weird freely. But then we have mostly gotten past the problem with society thinking we are freaky and weird. (Or else society has accepted our freaky and weird.) Plus, we geeks never really had to fight for legal issues, so not being taken seriously isn't really necessary.

Again: If the pride parade is for getting acceptance, everyone should note how they're being represented. If the pride parade is for fun, go for it. I just don't see how me saying this is at all controversial.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit

> Very often, it is the "freaks" - the visible folks who make people notice them - who lead the way in the fight for equality. Many of us are quiet and just want to live our lives, relying on the "freaks" to pave the way for that to happen.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page6#ixzz3eDLL4rUN



Lest anyone think I'm calling gays "freaks" or "weird" -- I'm only calling the actual freaks and weirds, freaky and weird. (Freaky and weird is by no means a gay thing -- all of humanity has them. For instance: Christians have Westboro Baptist Church; Muslims have ISIS; Southerners have rednecks.) And I'd argue that the "freaks" are not the ones paving the way for anyone to quietly live their lives. They help make it difficult for you to live life in peace because they perpetuate the stereotype that some people hold all gays to.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit

I'm happy to see no one posted after my last post before I could clarify something:



> Christians have Westboro Baptist Church; Muslims have ISIS; Southerners have rednecks
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page6#ixzz3eDfHIOid



I don't mean to imply that all "freaks and weirdos" are negative. Some freaks and weirdos are great and fun. But does a group want to be defined by them?

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

trappedslider said:


> From Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”




Judges are smart, but they ARE humans.  And there, Roberts ignores the aforementioned very real, practical problems with polyamorous marriage that are well within the purview of gov't concerns- said issues which do not arise at all within homosexual marriage.

And as any of those justices well know, every decision on constitutionality is a balancing act between protection of the right in question versus all the other rights and duties in society with which it interacts.  Pick any area of law to research, and you'll find judicial decisions that are distinguished from each other by the finest of details.  Just because similar augments can be made for 2 similar positions, it does not neccessarily follow that the results of litigation will be similar.  The Devil is in the details.

Consider: it is perfectly legal to refuse service to any potential customer...unless and until you are refusing service on the basis of someone's membership in a protected class.  So if you had a restaurant & bar, you could refuse to serve Rabbi Levi on the grounds that he's being abusive, because he is drunk, because he smells like a sewer, because he's yelling at the top of his lungs, because he passed you counterfeit money last year, because his attire at the time does not meet the dress code, because he refused to do your best buddy's bar mitzvah 8 years ago, because he cut you off in traffic...

...but you can't refuse him service because he's Jewish.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> I'm happy to see no one posted after my last post before I could clarify something:
> 
> I don't mean to imply that all "freaks and weirdos" are negative. Some freaks and weirdos are great and fun. But does a group want to be defined by them?
> 
> Bullgrit




Yes, because no one defines us but us.  Each individual defines themselves and chooses what group or sub-group or whatever to identify with.  That is the primary attitude shift we are facing, all groups and people, in fact.  Taking charge of our identities and refusing all labels except the ones we give ourselves.  

As a personal example, I accept and celebrate the labels of transgender and gamer and accept everything associated with those labels while seeking to change the negative associations within those labels.  I refuse to allow anyone else to label me.  

If society has a problem with how a person defines themselves, then it is society that must change.

Caveat that shouldn't be needed: My right to label myself ends where another person's rights begin.  No one has the right to harm another.  And the absurdist, "Well, what if I label myself a sheepdog?" arguments are irrelevant and actively harmful to intelligent conversation.


----------



## MechaPilot

trappedslider said:


> From Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”




I doubt that to be so.  However, even if it were, it's also striking how much of the reasoning behind disallowing gay marriage relies on enshrining religious belief as secular law (which the opponents of gay marriage would not like if the chosen religion was not their own, say if it were Hindu or Islamic beliefs), or just saying it's wrong because some people think it's "icky."


----------



## trappedslider

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Judges are smart, but they ARE humans.  And there, Roberts ignores the aforementioned very real, practical problems with polyamorous marriage that are well within the purview of gov't concerns- said issues which do not arise at all within homosexual marriage..




But his remarks can at some point down the road be used in an argument before the court calling for legalization of  plural can it not?


----------



## MechaPilot

trappedslider said:


> But his remarks can at some point down the road be used in an argument before the court calling for legalization of  plural can it not?




How so?

The argument for marriage equality for gays is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry one other person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.  Marriage may not be a constitutional right, but consider how abhorrent it would be if that right were taken from the people who have traditionally enjoyed it.  Would they not feel that a precious right had been stolen from them?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

trappedslider said:


> But his remarks can at some point down the road be used in an argument before the court calling for legalization of  plural can it not?




Sure.  But that doesn't make the argument a winner.  Or a loser, for that matter.

As noted in the ENWorld thread about the ACA decision, Justice Roberts quoted the dissent in a 2012 ACA case while writing the majority opinion on the 2015 case.  By doing so, he pointed out not just one of the main reasons he decided the way he did, but also that his fellow conservatives were not following their own logic.  IOW, he called them ideologues & hypocrites *on the record.*

Jurists may consider all kinds of sources for guidance in their decision making processes- medical texts, the Magna Carta, Sharia law, Talmudic law, the opinions of other judges.  But the only sources that have the actual force of law behind them are the laws and the actual decisions of courts of the USA.

Dissents are important.  Sometimes, they're so well reasoned and expressed, they eventually carry the day in subsequent judicial decisions.  But they're not law.  Majority decisions are.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As I predicted, there are several "Rainbow Crow" options being contemplated already:

http://www.newsweek.com/following-s...sissippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

(FWIW, there is also a long post in the article's comments by "Juan Velez" that does a nice takedown of the contras position.)


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> Sigh. No. Really, am I being this difficult to understand?




No.  I understand you.  I just think you're *wrong*.



> If a group, any group, takes one day a year to celebrate themselves, their culture, their lifestyle, their biology, their "thing", whatever, to say, "Hey world! This is us! This is who we are!", and the main thing the world sees on that day, in that presentation, is mostly something over the top, something not only not-normal for the general world, but not even normal for that specific culture, then isn't that poorly representing the group?




I think the empirical evidence says, "No, it isn't."

Case in point - Massachusetts recognized gay marriage in 2004.  Just over a decade ago.  Today, the majority of Americans (the number I've seen is 60%) favor allowing gay marriage, including the majority of _Republicans_ 30 and younger.  Never in history has a shift in public opinion on a rights issue occurred so quickly.  And that's with Gay Pride parades happening all over the darn place!

You have in your head what sounds like a plausible issue, but data beats plausible story every day of the week.  I don't think the claim that these parades were hurting the gay position holds water.  Folks generally know that parades are overblown - that's their *purpose*.  Mardi Gras is not a representation of everyday New Orleans.  The Thanksgiving Day Parade is not a representation of what we do at home with our family for the holiday.  Wagging your finger at someone being flamboyant during a parade is *missing the point of a parade*.

Consider it this way - "old guard" types on the whole will not be swayed by anything the gay community does.  Parading in proper conservative tweed would not sway them.  Their opinions were never up for grabs, so there was no point in trying to get them.  However, for anyone my generation and younger, seeing those things periodically all our lives means we are not shocked by them.  We no longer register them as a meaningful indicator of what a person is like.  Just one generation for a change like this is *fast*.  Look how long Women's Suffrage took, and how long we had to go from Emancipation to the Civil Rights Act!


----------



## Umbran

I found an observation by someone more learned than I:

*Antonin Scalia:* When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so.

*Thomas Jefferson:* I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that _laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times._ We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.﻿

(emphasis mine)


----------



## Bullgrit

> I understand you. I just think you're *wrong*.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page6#ixzz3eEaXVDFH



And I am completely open to being wrong. (After all, I was offering my view as a suggestion, not a statement of fact.) So long as I'm wrong about what I actually say and mean. 

What I can't accept being wrong about is something I haven't said or meant  And that is what seemed to happening -- some were interpreting my statements much broader and harsher than I was saying or meaning.

Bullgrit


----------



## trappedslider

MechaPilot said:


> The argument for marriage equality for gays is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry one other person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.  Marriage may not be a constitutional right, but consider how abhorrent it would be if that right were taken from the people who have traditionally enjoyed it.  Would they not feel that a precious right had been stolen from them?




Watch this : 

The argument for marriage equality for polygamist is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry more than one  person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society. 

see what I did there?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Jurists may consider all kinds of sources for guidance in their decision making processes- medical texts, the Magna Carta, Sharia law, Talmudic law.




I'd like to know if you know of any Jurist who has used Sharia law or Talmudic law. Cuz I think that whole it may be usless info..it would be kind of cool to know lol


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

trappedslider said:


> Watch this :
> 
> The argument for marriage equality for polygamist is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry more than one  person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.
> 
> see what I did there?




Yes- you used the same argument form without addressing the unique and very real issues raised by polyamory.



> I'd like to know if you know of any Jurist who has used Sharia law or Talmudic law. Cuz I think that whole it may be usless info..it would be kind of cool to know lol




I had some exemplars- mostly focused on English law, like the Magna Carta- presented to me in law school to illustrate the principle, but none was so outstanding as to overshadow the importance of the lesson itself.


----------



## Umbran

trappedslider said:


> Watch this :
> 
> The argument for marriage equality for polygamist is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry more than one  person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.
> 
> see what I did there?




Yes.  Both of you used an argument that may tug at the moral heartstrings, but isn't legally relevant.

The argument for gay marriage equality isn't that marriage has been redefined over time.  It is that there is no fundamental difference between a marriage between a man and a woman, and between two men (or two women).  The argument for gay marriage is that legally speaking, you *don't* have to substantively redefine it to make it fit gay couples, and therefore the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies.


----------



## Bullgrit

I wonder how many people personally dislike gays/gay marriage and just use religion for their reason, vs. how many people would be ok with gays/gay marriage but feel they can't honestly because of their religion.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus

Bullgrit said:


> I wonder how many people personally dislike gays/gay marriage and just use religion for their reason, vs. how many people would be ok with gays/gay marriage but feel they can't honestly because of their religion.




I tend to agree with Umbran -- the issue is homophobia.  Religion is often used as a mask for it.  It's a very poor mask, however; we can all see right through it.  That said, I can't see into minds of such people, so I can do no more than guess.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bullgrit said:


> I wonder how many people personally dislike gays/gay marriage and just use religion for their reason, vs. how many people would be ok with gays/gay marriage but feel they can't honestly because of their religion.
> 
> Bullgrit




Tough question.  It may not be a binary answer, but a spectrum.

I know my Mom genuinely loves the gays she knows.  Always has.  In general, she treats them no differently than anyone else, and they are not barred from her home, her presence in any way.  Some were even on her personal "A-list" for social invitations.  

Hell- one was even my babysitter for a couple of years.  When we moved apart- both families were military- and encountered each other again many years later, they were shopping & theater/arts event buddies.  The man has been dead for years, and she still misses him.

But I also know she is genuinely of the opinion that the SCOTUS is wrong on this one, and will not participate in any practice that condones gay marriage on the grounds that gay marriage is immoral.


----------



## trappedslider

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Tough question.  It may not be a binary answer, but a spectrum.
> 
> I know my Mom genuinely loves the gays she knows.  Always has.  In general, she treats them no differently than anyone else, and they are not barred from her home, her presence in any way.  Some were even on her personal "A-list" for social invitations.
> 
> Hell- one was even my babysitter for a couple of years.  When we moved apart- both families were military- and encountered each other again many years later, they were shopping & theater/arts event buddies.  The man has been dead for years, and she still misses him.
> 
> But I also know she is genuinely of the opinion that the SCOTUS is wrong on this one, and will not participate in any practice that condones gay marriage on the grounds that gay marriage is immoral.




Yes there's a phrase that comes up "Love the sinner,but hate the sin"


----------



## Morrus

I will take a quick moment to quickly note that although folks may discuss politics and religion for now, that only means discussing it; at no point does that extend to actually making statements of, expressing, or promoting homophobic, sexist, racist, or other such beliefs here.  I'm very glad that nobody has done so, but it's worth noting. This is an inclusive community.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

trappedslider said:


> Yes there's a phrase that comes up "Love the sinner,but hate the sin"




Very familiar with it.

Unfortunately, IME, many who say it don't really live it.  They seem to conflate the sin with the sinner, and go right ahead being unkind to the sinners in question.  

I have noticed a few clergymen who have also recognized this, and have started to address the issue from the pulpit/altar, in an effort to change the behavior.  Slooooow going, that.

When I get into a discussion of homosexuality on those grounds, I try to remind all participants that, according to our shared faith traditions, we're ALL sinners in some way.  Then I point out that we don't generally act like asses to sinners of OTHER kinds, and ask what sets homosexuality apart from this other sins so that they get beaten, insulted, fired, refused service, evicted, etc.

There was a VERY thoroughly out gay guy- who was also a Wiccan- in one of my gaming groups. He had the misfortune of working alongside a staunch evangelical.  He used to talk to us about her latest attempts at conversion, etc.

I told him he needed to make a hostile workplace complaint.

I realize that evangelicals take evangelization seriously, but it doesn't belong in the workplace.  AND, since she seemed to be singling him out as the sole target of conversion, it really was inappropriate.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> Yes.  Both of you used an argument that may tug at the moral heartstrings, but isn't legally relevant.
> 
> The argument for gay marriage equality isn't that marriage has been redefined over time.  It is that there is no fundamental difference between a marriage between a man and a woman, and between two men (or two women).  The argument for gay marriage is that legally speaking, you *don't* have to substantively redefine it to make it fit gay couples, and therefore the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies.




I believe the equal protection clause applies because the gay marriage is official in another state.  For example, if Michigan honors the official heterosexual marriages of California, it should not be able to deny recognition of official homosexual marriages of California.


----------



## MechaPilot

trappedslider said:


> Watch this :
> 
> The argument for marriage equality for polygamist is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry more than one  person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.
> 
> see what I did there?




Yes, I see that you completely ignored the context of how the contract of marriage actually functions in every state (i.e. between two people, regardless of race or gender) in order to word your statement so that it pretended that marriages are generally between more than two persons.


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I realize that evangelicals take evangelization seriously, but it doesn't belong in the workplace.  AND, since she seemed to be singling him out as the sole target of conversion, it really was inappropriate.




Plus, of course, referring to someone's very existence and identity as a "sin" is extraordinarily obnoxious, no matter what book told them it was OK to do so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Morrus said:


> Plus, of course, referring to someone's very existence and identity as a "sin" is extraordinarily obnoxious, no matter what book told them it was OK to do so.




Of course.

But remember, most people who utter that sentence in this context do not view sexual orientation as a relatively immutable characteristic, but rather, as purely a voluntary behavior.  Framed that way, it is no different than any other sin.

Unless & until you can get them to believe the testimony of the people in question and the increasing weight of scientific findings on this, there is an unbridgeable gap.  Protests to the contrary will only harden their resolve, since the instinctive reaction to being caught sinning/doing something wrong is denial that you did something wrong.

Similar reactions from differing root causes.


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But remember, most people who utter that sentence in this context do not view sexual orientation as a relatively immutable characteristic, but rather, as purely a voluntary behavior.  Framed that way, it is no different than any other sin.




Sure. But ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for any form of -ism or similar behaviour. It just isn't. And such obnoxious behaviour - unlike homosexuality - actually _is_ a choice, and choosing to say such things is a choice.  One can't necessarily control how one feels, but one can control what one says.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Morrus said:


> Sure. But ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for any form of -ism or similar behaviour. It just isn't. And such obnoxious behaviour - unlike homosexuality - actually _is_ a choice, and choosing to say such things is a choice.  One can't necessarily control how one feels, but one can control what one says.



Which brings up an interesting fact about certain branches of Christianity.  I guarantee you that you can find gay clergy in the Catholic, Anglican and Episcopal churches, despite the supposed "sinfulness" of homosexuality.*  This is because, unlike many of the evangelical branches, there is a stronger distinction between sinner and sin.  

IOW, they condemn the behavior, not the person.

So a gay priest or nun is perfectly acceptable, as long as they adhere to the same vows of chastity and celibacy, etc. as their heterosexual brethren and sisters in the clergy.  Convincing them the same standard should apply to vows of marriage, OTOH, is probably going to take generations.












* I cannot speak to the psychology of said individuals.  How they can separate their sexual orientation from their identity is baffling to me.  Orwell would smile at the doublethink involved.


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> I believe the equal protection clause applies because the gay marriage is official in another state.




That holds for recognition of marriage performed in another state.  If you accept the validity of a hetero marriage from Massachusetts, you have to accept all the marriages from Massachusetts.

However, the argument for whether your own state offers such marriages isn't based on what goes on in other states.  You, in your own state, offer a legal option to a pair of people - you don't get to pick and choose which people, without clear governmental needs.

Which is to say - if you strip off the initial "marriage is between a man and a woman" from marriage laws, you find that they are otherwise gender neutral.  The legal rights and responsibilities of married people are not gender-dependent!  Thus, they can just as easily apply to any pair of people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  That's "equal protection".


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> Sure. But ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for any form of -ism or similar behaviour.




I dunno.  I think if you came from a culture that didn't have the evidence we do, I'd cut a bit of slack until such time as they can be properly informed.  This goes hand-in-hand with another concept - it is not a character flaw to fail to be ahead of your times.  It is a great thing if you are ahead of your times, a leader of new, better ideas.  But there's no shame to not figuring it all out yourself.

*Willful* ignorance is never an acceptable excuse.  If you have one source or factual information, and one source of unfounded belief, and you choose the wrong one, that's on you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Which is why the case hinged on answers 2 questions: whether states had to recognize ceremonies from other sovereigns, and whether marriage was truly a fundamental constitutional right.

Now, they only asked about other states, but the same issue also arises from ceremonies performed in other countries.  The FF&C/Equal protection arguments could have been decided to apply ONLY marriages performed within the territories of the USA.  By making marriage a constitutional right, that means that not only are states not allowed to outlaw and must allow gay marriages, they also have to recognize those performed in other countries.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which brings up an interesting fact about certain branches of Christianity.  I guarantee you that you can find gay clergy in the Catholic, Anglican and Episcopal churches, despite the supposed "sinfulness" of homosexuality.*




As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin.  Homosexual *actions* are sinful.  



> * I cannot speak to the psychology of said individuals.  How they can separate their sexual orientation from their identity is baffling to me.




They don't have to, due to the above.  Their orientation is not itself sinful.  And, it isn't like they are the only ones in such a state.   *Everyone* has thoughts that might lead them to sin.  *Everyone* has challenges.  I mean, the guy who thinks about adultery?  He's in about the same boat - committing adultery is a mortal sin, too.  

Having challenges to overcome to avoid sin is the basic human condition.  That's okay.   Just don't give in to them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin.  Homosexual *actions* are sinful.




Exactly.



> They don't have to, due to the above.  Their orientation is not itself sinful.  And, it isn't like they are the only ones in such a state.   *Everyone* has thoughts that might lead them to sin.  *Everyone* has challenges.  I mean, the guy who thinks about adultery?  He's in about the same boat - committing adultery is a mortal sin, too.
> 
> Having challenges to overcome to avoid sin is the basic human condition.  That's okay.   Just don't give in to them.




Yes.  And Catholicism is all about recognizing what we'd WANT to do, and modifying our behavior so that we don't neccessarily act on those desires.

BUT*...if you accept that one's sexual orientation is essentially as immutable as one's hair color or height, you still have a psychological doublethink issue: imagine being told "Being a redhead is not sinful, but ACTING like a redhead is."  "Don't act tall- behaving with tallness is a sin."  It has to be very difficult to compartmentalize a part of yourself off like that.





* Yes, that is a big but.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> BUT*...if you accept that one's sexual orientation is essentially as immutable as one's hair color or height, you still have a psychological doublethink issue: imagine being told "Being a redhead is not sinful, but ACTING like a redhead is."  "Don't act tall- behaving with tallness is a sin."  It has to be very difficult to compartmentalize a part of yourself off like that.




I can imagine at least one way to view it that doesn't involve doublethink.  And it comes out of the Catholic Catechism on the subject.  It speaks of the orientation as being a challenge for many people.

Replace the term "homosexual" with "alcoholic" for a moment.  In a medical sense, being an alcoholic or addict is not a choice.  It is a fact of your neurochemistry.  And, you face a challenge every day, to not give in to the desires that neurochemistry instills in you.  I don't see as a recovering addict has to doublethink to compartmentalize.  He or she knows she has a problem that presents strong desires to be resisted.  It doesn't make you a bad person.

That is, however, just my imagining of how it might work out.  It isn't like I've spoken with a member of the clergy about it.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> Replace the term "homosexual" with "alcoholic" for a moment.  In a medical sense, being an alcoholic or addict is not a choice.  It is a fact of your neurochemistry.  And, you face a challenge every day, to not give in to the desires that neurochemistry instills in you.  I don't see as a recovering addict has to doublethink to compartmentalize.  He or she knows she has a problem that presents strong desires to be resisted.  It doesn't make you a bad person.




I think you're, willingly or not, ignoring the inherent choice in alcoholism: you cannot be an alcoholic without having consumed alcohol (presumably voluntarily), though you could have a genetic predisposition toward addiction.  However, having the genetic predisposition doesn't make one an alcoholic or give one the desire to drink that needs to be resisted.


----------



## trappedslider

Umbran said:


> As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin.  Homosexual *actions* are sinful.




This is exactly how The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints views it.


----------



## tomBitonti

Umbran said:


> As I understand it, for the Catholic church, having homosexual *feelings* is not itself a sin.  Homosexual *actions* are sinful.




I'm thinking it's not quite that simple:



> 16Come and hear, all you who fear God;
> let me tell you what he has done for me.
> 17I cried out to him with my mouth;
> his praise was on my tongue.
> 18If I had cherished sin in my heart,
> the Lord would not have listened;
> 19but God has surely listened
> and has heard my prayer.
> 20Praise be to God,
> who has not rejected my prayer
> or withheld his love from me!




(One translation; see http://biblehub.com/niv/psalms/66.htm.)

I don't know if thinking a sinful thought is a sin, but I expect it would be counseled against.

I also expect that there are many many different ways to read the above, and that this is an area that folks who study religion would specifically study.  I'm not one of those folks, so I offer this as an impression, having been raised as a Roman Catholic.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran

tomBitonti said:


> I'm thinking it's not quite that simple:




It is that simple.  It is the position in the current Catholic Catechism:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

The key terms are "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively disordered".  The first means they are a moral evil, the latter means they lead to a moral evil, but aren't exactly evil in and of themselves.


----------



## tomBitonti

Umbran said:


> It is that simple.  It is the position in the current Catholic Catechism:
> 
> "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
> 
> The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
> Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
> 
> The key terms are "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively disordered".  The first means they are a moral evil, the latter means they lead to a moral evil, but aren't exactly evil in and of themselves.




I accept that that is taught, but, it doesn't match what I remember from my grade school catechism.  Say:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm



> Murder
> 
> 21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sisterb c will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’d is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
> 
> 23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
> 
> 25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
> 
> Adultery
> 
> 27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.




I find it hard to fit the quoted position with the quote from Matthew.

But, I'm working from a small sample set, from a small rural church, and from forty years ago.  And there is a difference between "think" and "feel", maybe that's tripping me up.  Or maybe, the church has not entirely consistent views.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Of all the pro-decision political cartoons I've seen, I think this one nails it:




Freaking iconic, IMHO.  I'm straight, but I'd have to strongly consider buying a hat or T-shirt bearing that image.


----------



## Janx

billd91 said:


> Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.
> 
> Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.




polygamy also reduces the available women to date headcount (yeah, I know a woman could aruably have 10 husbands by we all know it never works out that way).

That in turn means that the rich guys get a harem, and everybody else is stuck alone because there's not enough women to go around (they only account for 50% of the population).


----------



## Bullgrit

Apparently there are some folks afraid that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings, against their principles. I have noticed that no one has been correcting or contradicting that fear.

And I note that there is now at least a little precedence for this fear -- telling a private bakery that they must accept and fulfill a cake order for a gay wedding, against the owner's/baker's principles.

As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles. Is it possible that churches can be forced to perform gay weddings? Why, or why not?

*****

I find the idea that "love" won this legal argument a bit troublesome. This suggests that the judges decided based on emotion rather than legal reasoning. I'd prefer that this won because it is legally right and sound within our laws, instead of it won because someone's heart grew three sizes that day. Does this make me a bad person?

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> Apparently there are some folks afraid that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings, against their principles. I have noticed that no one has been correcting or contradicting that fear.




Aside from plenty of non-FoxNews commentators or theBlaze? I suggest you get out more.



Bullgrit said:


> And I note that there is now at least a little precedence for this fear -- telling a private bakery that they must accept and fulfill a cake order for a gay wedding, against the owner's/baker's principles.
> 
> As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles. Is it possible that churches can be forced to perform gay weddings? Why, or why not?




There's a significant difference between being a religious organization and being a vendor that serves the public. If you're selling to the public, you have to sell to the *whole* public. Religious organizations have never been under that assumption. Refer back to the thread on Gen Con's letter to the governor of Indiana. Gen Con Takes a Stand for Inclusiveness


----------



## JRRNeiklot

We the People are stupid.  We could stop this entire argument by getting governmen the hell out of marriage altogether.  Marriage is a religious institution.  Non-religious people shouldn't even have a horse in the race, but they want a piece of the pie the government shouldn't even be handing out.  Why do two people lying about "to death do us part" deserve a cash handout for it?  The more people getting "married" the more taxes we all pay to make up the difference.  Want to get married?  Get your religious institution of choice to perform the ceremony and keep everyone else the hell out of your bedroom.  The problem is not and has not ever been wether or not gays can marry.  The problem is why ANYONE has to ask permission from Washington to do so.


----------



## Morrus

Bullgrit said:


> As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles.




If someone's principles include discrimination, I'm pretty OK with forcing them to do something against their principles.  You can't refuse to serve someone because they're black, after all, not matter how strongly you feel about it. This is very much a good thing; if someone won't do the right thing, society makes them do it.

One of the agreements you (as in the generic you) make with society when you start a business is that you'll follow all the restrictions and responsibilities that society attaches to that endeavour.  You'll pay your taxes, you'll not engage in anti-competitive behaviour, you won't discriminate against protected classes, and so on.  Nobody necessarily wants to do all these things, but they have to if they want to operate a business.  I'm really OK with that.


----------



## Morrus

JRRNeiklot said:


> Marriage is a religious institution.




No, it's not.  Unless you're saying I'm not married?  My wife would be mightily upset to hear that.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Aside from plenty of non-FoxNews commentators or theBlaze? I suggest you get out more.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page8#ixzz3eSZ2e7Mv



See, this attitude and dismissal is what makes me dislike asking questions. In fact, my observation and question comes from seeing a short blurb on a TV network morning news show (not Fox, but not sure if ABC, NBC, or CBS) and listening to NPR half an hour this morning on my drive to work.

Bullgrit


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Morrus said:


> No, it's not.  Unless you're saying I'm not married?  My wife would be mightily upset to hear that.




So why are you married if there's nothing religious about it?  Do you really need a piece of paper to stay committed to her and her to you?  Suppose the government ruled your marriage null and void today.  Would you rush out and cheat on her?


----------



## Morrus

JRRNeiklot said:


> So why are you married if there's nothing religious about it?  Do you really need a piece of paper to stay committed to her and her to you?  Suppose the government ruled your marriage null and void today.  Would you rush out and cheat on her?




I'm not inclined to defend my own marriage on the internet.  Suffice it to say, I am married, and there is no religious component to that.  I and a very large portion of society are very happy with that - marriage has not required a religious component since the 1800s.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Morrus said:


> I'm not inclined to defend my own marriage on the internet.  Suffice it to say, I am married, and there is no religious component to that.




I didn't mean to suggest you should.  My comment above was rhetorical.

Nevertheless marriage is still a religious institution, and while legally it may require no religious component, it's still a religious ritual, else why do 80% involve a church?


----------



## Janx

JRRNeiklot said:


> We the People are stupid.  We could stop this entire argument by getting governmen the hell out of marriage altogether.  Marriage is a religious institution.  Non-religious people shouldn't even have a horse in the race, but they want a piece of the pie the government shouldn't even be handing out.  Why do two people lying about "to death do us part" deserve a cash handout for it?  The more people getting "married" the more taxes we all pay to make up the difference.  Want to get married?  Get your religious institution of choice to perform the ceremony and keep everyone else the hell out of your bedroom.  The problem is not and has not ever been wether or not gays can marry.  The problem is why ANYONE has to ask permission from Washington to do so.




Except that atheists, pagans and everybody gets married.  It's an honor thing.  it's an oath thing.  it's symbolic.  it's frankly non of anybody else's business why anybody says they want to get married so long as it is concentual between adults.  None of that arranged marriage between 40 year old men and 13 year old girls (true story, my wife had one of those girls as a student).  Religious institution my arse, that was religious rape.

To your last quote:
The problem is why ANYONE has to ask permission from Washington to do so.

the problem wasn't washington.  They were happy to recognize anybody who filed married on their taxes long before the SCOTUS decision.

the problem was states like Texas choosing to ignore the SCOTUS decision and deny that right to marry to certain individuals.  Texas is the one forcing you to ask permission by the act of saying "no" to some people.

Every time i hear somebody be anti-federal and pro-states rights, it's for their state to be mean to a certain demographic of people.


----------



## Morrus

JRRNeiklot said:


> Nevertheless marriage is still a religious institution, and while legally it may require no religious component, it's still a religious ritual, else why do 80% involve a church?




It can be a religious institution.  It doesn't have to be. Secular recognition is well-entrenched both legally and socially. Marriages in antiquity took place for myriad reasons - the earliest were strategic ties to allies.   It's strongly tied to rights of inheritance, and it pretty much predates recorded history. The Catholic Church didn't start getting involved in marriage until the 1200s.


----------



## Bullgrit

> It's an honor thing. it's an oath thing. it's symbolic.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page8#ixzz3eSiL1Yzy



That's why I got married. Plus the legal recognition for legal issues. Though I did get married in a church by a clergyman, I don't consider my union to be part of a religious institution.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

JRRNeiklot said:


> Marriage is a religious institution.




No, it isn't.  Marriage is a social contract.  For a long time, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between religion and government, so the rules for social contracts were often encoded in religious practices.  



> Why do two people lying about "to death do us part" deserve a cash handout for it?




Well, my own parents were very much married until they died.  So... how about you take that broad brush and paint somewhere else with it?  Please and thank you.  



> The more people getting "married" the more taxes we all pay to make up the difference.




Excepting, of course, all those who get married, and find their taxes go *up* because of how the brackets work out.


----------



## Umbran

JRRNeiklot said:


> So why are you married if there's nothing religious about it?




Speaking generically, not about Morrus, personally:  So that they share all the associated rights that come with being married.  No church confers those rights.

For honor, and symbolism, as well.  It is one thing to sit with your partner in your living room and saying that you love and are committed to each other.  It is another thing to do so in front of your friends and family, having your togetherness recognized by your community.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Umbran said:


> For honor, and symbolism, as well.  It is one thing to sit with your partner in your living room and saying that you love and are committed to each other.  It is another thing to do so in front of your friends and family, having your togetherness recognized by your community.




And you need a piece of paper for that?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Umbran said:


> Well, my own parents were very much married until they died.  So... how about you take that broad brush and paint somewhere else with it?  Please and thank you.




My parents were married for 66 years until my dad died in 2006, but that's hardly the norm.


----------



## Morrus

JRRNeiklot said:


> And you need a piece of paper for that?




Is it easier if we just say yes, we need a piece of paper for that?  I didn't get married because I needed to.  I got married because I wanted to.  This seems to really bother you?  It's just the choice my wife and I made about our lives, and how important the symbolism was to us. The legal rights associated weren't really that much of a concern, but they'll be a help if something were to befall one of us.  That didn't really enter our minds, though.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

First off, let me be clear, I'm not referring to anyone specifically when I say "you."  I'm speaking generally.  I just think that the government has no business whatsoever in marriage.  It's just another way to meddle in our lives.  The mere fact that anyone has to get government permission to legitimize marriage in any form annoys me, yes.  The whole gay marriage thing is just another way to divide Americans so we ignore the real problem of government overreach.


----------



## Morrus

JRRNeiklot said:


> I just think that the government has no business whatsoever in marriage.




Honestly, we got that.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Morrus said:


> Honestly, we got that.




Good, because I get the idea you think I'm calling you out specifically on the details of your marriage.  I could not care less about anyone's particular marriage.  In fact, I wish them only happiness.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

JRRNeiklot said:


> First off, let me be clear, I'm not referring to anyone specifically when I say "you."  I'm speaking generally.  I just think that the government has no business whatsoever in marriage.  It's just another way to meddle in our lives.  The mere fact that anyone has to get government permission to legitimize marriage in any form annoys me, yes.  The whole gay marriage thing is just another way to divide Americans so we ignore the real problem of government overreach.




Honestly, I have the exact opposite view.  Religion should not be involved in marriage (except for those who specifically want a religious ceremony).  Religion meddles far too much in our lives and most definitely has an overreach problem.


----------



## billd91

JRRNeiklot said:


> And you need a piece of paper for that?




When the question of having the right to make medical decisions and financial decisions in a world in which disputes between interested parties occur? Yes. In fact that piece of paper helps a great deal. This is why marriage exists as a legal entity - not because of religious concerns - but because of issues that the state has an interest in seeing handled with some consistency and a minimum of disruption.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Honestly, I have the exact opposite view. Religion should not be involved in marriage (except for those who specifically want a religious ceremony). Religion meddles far too much in our lives and most definitely has an overreach problem.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page9#ixzz3eTK0Q2mp



This is odd statement to me. Religion doesn't meddle in my life, at all. And even if it did, it doesn't have any real power to make do or not do anything. And isn't religion's involvement in marriage only with those who specifically want a religions ceremony? I mean, you can get married at the courthouse, right?

Now, I do agree that many religious people would like to convince/control government to meddle in people's lives according to their own beliefs, but that is true of many institutions.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit

Cracked.com has had several interesting and educational articles regarding various LGBT subjects. The latest:
http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...veryone-still-believes-about-bisexuality.html

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

JRRNeiklot said:


> So why are you married if there's nothing religious about it?  Do you really need a piece of paper to stay committed to her and her to you?  Suppose the government ruled your marriage null and void today.  Would you rush out and cheat on her?




If nothing else, the simple secular reasons are the same as gays have been fighting for: the way our laws handle taxes, rights of succession & inheritance, rights of hospitals visitation & guardianship, parental rights, and all the 10.,000+ things being "married" changes about you in the eyes of the law.

"Married" isn't just a word, it is a legal status, and unless your jurisdiction recognizes something like "common law" marriages, if you don't have that piece of paper, you don't have that legal status.


> why do 80% involve a church?



Because most people still self-identify as "religious."


----------



## Umbran

JRRNeiklot said:


> And you need a piece of paper for that?




On top of the legal reasons already cited by others:

Humans are social creatures.  Our social structures actually matter to our psychology and emotional well-being.  So, in general, we need something that our overall society recognizes.  For us, that means a legal piece of paper.


----------



## Umbran

JRRNeiklot said:


> My parents were married for 66 years until my dad died in 2006, but that's hardly the norm.




Which makes your accusation of people "lying" (meaning, knowingly and willingly speaking something they don't believe is true) even less solid.  It only holds for people who have *no intention* of it being until death.  That's getting to the point of such being a bugaboo.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> This is odd statement to me. Religion doesn't meddle in my life, at all.




You probably fall into one of the groups that the US's dominant religions don't have a problem with. Be thankful for that.  But recognize that it is a happy place in which you reside, in which not everyone does.


----------



## Bullgrit

> You probably fall into one of the groups that the US's dominant religions don't have a problem with. Be thankful for that. But recognize that it is a happy place in which you reside, in which not everyone does.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page9#ixzz3eTVnWCyR



But in what way does religion directly meddle in someone's life? I already said that I agree that religion wants to use government to meddle, as do many organizations, (e.g. Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, etc.). I would agree, also, if someone said religion meddles with government, but how does religion skip the middle man and meddle in one's life? (Assuming one is not of that religion, and thereby tacitly agrees to abide by that religion.)

Religion, like *everyone*, thinks that if everyone agreed with them, the world would be a happier place. I'm sure religion would love for me to attend church, but I haven't in decades, and no one has meddled in my life to get me to go. (Other than the rare instance of someone going door to door through the neighborhood to invite me, as part of a general outreach. They didn't single me out.)

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus

Bullgrit said:


> But in what way does religion directly meddle in someone's life? I already said that I agree that religion wants to use government to meddle, as do many organizations, (e.g. Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, etc.).




That *is* the way it meddles in peoples' life. And yes, other organizations do that, too.  That doesn't make it OK. It just happens to be the one we're talking about right now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bullgrit said:


> But in what way does religion directly meddle in someone's life?




Blue Laws are a common- but diminishing- one.  If you don't know, they're the reasons why you couldn't buy alcohol (and other vice-related products) on certain days or in certain forms in certain places.

Many of the anti-miscegenation laws pre-Loving were defended vociferously on religious grounds, as are the anti-Marriage Equality efforts.

How many religious national holidays close stores when it is inconvenient for you?

In some countries, religion can affect what political office, food, housing, or medical aid- if any- you are eligible to receive.  It can also turn your speech into a crime.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> This is odd statement to me. Religion doesn't meddle in my life, at all. And even if it did, it doesn't have any real power to make do or not do anything. And isn't religion's involvement in marriage only with those who specifically want a religions ceremony? I mean, you can get married at the courthouse, right?
> 
> Now, I do agree that many religious people would like to convince/control government to meddle in people's lives according to their own beliefs, but that is true of many institutions.
> 
> Bullgrit




One glaring example - The political ambitions of several of my friends are stymied because, as atheists, they cannot run for office in their home states.

Nearly every objection to marriage equality I've seen has stemmed from religious reasoning.  

Religion meddles.  Its sort of the point of religion, really.


----------



## Morrus

Oh, in some countries religion utterly dominates everyday life, often in cruel or restrictive ways.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> But in what way does religion directly meddle in someone's life?




Well, let us be clear - religion itself is an abstract concept, not a sentient being.  Religion cannot take actions.  A religious organization will, in the name of the religion.  That's probably what he was speaking about.  



> I already said that I agree that religion wants to use government to meddle, as do many organizations, (e.g. Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, etc.). I would agree, also, if someone said religion meddles with government




And since government governs our lives, religion is thus meddling with us.  If religious influence leads to a law against who I may sleep with, religion is meddling in my life.



> but how does religion skip the middle man and meddle in one's life? (Assuming one is not of that religion, and thereby tacitly agrees to abide by that religion.)




I don't think removing the middle man is required to consider it meddling in my life, but...

How about a church that advises a family to send their kid to Conversion Therapy to cure them of being gay?

How about a religious organization that encourages its members to try to convert young boys, under the auspices of a youth group not run by the organization?

How about a religious organization that digs out personal information on doctors or nurses who work in abortion clinics, and publishes them online?

(The middle one happened to me, personally, when I was a Boy Scout.  I was not amused, and had far more willpower than expected, such that it blew up in their faces a bit.).


----------



## Bullgrit

Yeah, I know how religion meddles in other countries. I'm discussing things from a US (and possibly UK, or even "western") perspective.

What prompted me to ask the question was how the original statement was made in response to another statement.



> I just think that the government has no business whatsoever in marriage. It's just another way to meddle in our lives.



In response was said:


> Honestly, I have the exact opposite view. Religion should not be involved in marriage (except for those who specifically want a religious ceremony). Religion meddles far too much in our lives and most definitely has an overreach problem.



One says, government shouldn't meddle in one's life. The response is, "I have the exact opposite view," and religion shouldn't meddle in one's life. Then I ask how does religion meddle in one's life? And everyone points out how religion meddles in government. Well, that's not the exact opposite -- that is actually nearly the same. Both are lamenting government meddling in lives. 

Even when I asked how religion meddles, everyone's response is to point out how government meddles. See? I agree that government meddles in lives (as you've given examples). And I agree that religion meddles in government. 

If government pokes you with a stick, even at the direction of religion, it is *government* poking you with a stick. When someone says, "I don't like government poking me with a stick," it doesn't make sense to say, "I feel the exact opposite; I don't like religion poking me with a stick." That's not "the exact opposite".

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus

I don't think you're going to get a different answer, Bullgrit. The meddling of which most of us a speaking is, indeed, of the via-government or legislation variety.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> Even when I asked how religion meddles, everyone's response is to point out how government meddles.




The mastermind of the crime gets convicted, even if he wasn't present when the bank was robbed, you know.  One is not absolved of responsibility by putting a middle man between you and the victim.  

If religion works through government to get a thing done, religion is still responsible for it happening.


----------



## Janx

Bullgrit said:


> This is odd statement to me. Religion doesn't meddle in my life, at all. And even if it did, it doesn't have any real power to make do or not do anything. And isn't religion's involvement in marriage only with those who specifically want a religions ceremony? I mean, you can get married at the courthouse, right?
> 
> Now, I do agree that many religious people would like to convince/control government to meddle in people's lives according to their own beliefs, but that is true of many institutions.
> 
> Bullgrit




Except that here in Texas, religion is meddling in people's lives.  They've shut down most of the abortion clinics which helps cut down on really unprepared pregnancies (given that CPS will not give anybody a kid under 8, because they have too much surplus in the 8+ range), yeah, religion meddles in peoples lives in Texas.  We have to adopt a baby out of state because of the contradictory religious views running the show down here.  Abortion's blocked, supporting low income mothers is bad, adopting babies is bad.  No wonder the crime rate sucks down here, all three factors lead to higher crime.

Gays are still likely to have some issues getting married down here thanks to the Texas AG telling county clerks to refuse service on religious grounds.


----------



## Bullgrit

Still, you're not taking the entire statement that I quoted into context. 







> The mastermind of the crime gets convicted, even if he wasn't present when the bank was robbed, you know. One is not absolved of responsibility by putting a middle man between you and the victim.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eTvUizQr



"I don't like thieves robbing banks."

"I'm the *exact opposite*. I don't like masterminds robbing banks."

The phrasing, "the exact opposite," implies the thieves were not involved, and the mastermind is the one directly robbing. *Taking the whole quote and context.* So I ask how does a mastermind rob banks. If "by using thieves" is the answer, well, that agrees with the first statement of "I don't like thieves robbing banks."



> The meddling of which most of us a speaking is, indeed, of the via-government or legislation variety.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eTygFc18



OK and sure. Then the original statement that I questioned is actually in agreement with the original statement it was contradicting. This was all a circular argument that wouldn't have come up if one of the links in the chain had not been added.

Bullgrit


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> Yeah, I know how religion meddles in other countries. I'm discussing things from a US (and possibly UK, or even "western") perspective.
> 
> What prompted me to ask the question was how the original statement was made in response to another statement.
> 
> 
> In response was said:
> One says, government shouldn't meddle in one's life. The response is, "I have the exact opposite view," and religion shouldn't meddle in one's life. Then I ask how does religion meddle in one's life? And everyone points out how religion meddles in government. Well, that's not the exact opposite -- that is actually nearly the same. Both are lamenting government meddling in lives.
> 
> Even when I asked how religion meddles, everyone's response is to point out how government meddles. See? I agree that government meddles in lives (as you've given examples). And I agree that religion meddles in government.
> 
> If government pokes you with a stick, even at the direction of religion, it is *government* poking you with a stick. When someone says, "I don't like government poking me with a stick," it doesn't make sense to say, "I feel the exact opposite; I don't like religion poking me with a stick." That's not "the exact opposite".
> 
> Bullgrit




I get three types of door-to-door people on a weekly basis.

1. Folks offering "free" carpet cleaning.

2. College students duped in to trying to sell something for scholarships.

3. Religious folks trying to get me to go to their church.

I give them all a semi-polite no thank you.  The church folks and the carpet folks are the most persistent, never taking no for an answer.  And the general spiel is the same...its a sales pitch in both cases.  

Sometimes, I ask the church folks their opinions on marriage equality and transgender rights.  They either can't answer and stammer, or they offer the standard, "love the sinner, not the sin" line.  

It seems to be a written rule for many denominations to "spread the gospel."  That sounds like meddling to me.


----------



## Bullgrit

> That's probably what he was speaking about.



Actually, she, unless I've lost track of who said what.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit

> It seems to be a written rule for many denominations to "spread the gospel." That sounds like meddling to me.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eU1nDQLH



We have a different threshold for what is meddling. With your definition, Google ads is far more meddling in my life than any religion 

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus

Bullgrit said:


> Still, you're not taking the entire statement that I quoted into context. "I don't like thieves robbing banks."
> 
> "I'm the *exact opposite*. I don't like masterminds robbing banks."




Wait, this entire line of conversation is about whether someone was grammatically correct to use the words "exact opposite"?  Yikes, Bullgrit! 

You are right.  Those are not exact opposites.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> The phrasing, "the exact opposite,"




Is just phrasing.  We are in casual conversation, not writing legal documents.  Maybe you shouldn't read too much into it, hm?


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> Actually, she, unless I've lost track of who said what.




I am sure I have lost track, largely because who said it isn't the most relevant bit.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Wait, this entire line of conversation is about whether someone was grammatically correct to use the words "exact opposite"? Yikes, Bullgrit!
> 
> You are right. Those are not exact opposites.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eU3YMkEs



Well, I assume the grammar was correct and intended by the person making the statement. I asked for examples. Then lots of other people piped in with their answers seemingly without looking at the context I was originally responding to. So it wasn't me calling out a grammatical mistake, it was everyone else ignoring the original context in full. Everyone responded to my post, but ignoring the post I quoted, and the post that quote, quoted. Basically, my question was third post deep, and everyone just read my post out of context.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx

Back when Obama was first running for president, NPR had a journalist at one of them religious colleges named after some famous religious guy.  They talked to a group of kids, all but one said they'd be voting for Bush.  The one dissenter was confronted with "how can you vote for a Democrat, aren't you a Christian?"  That's an almost exact quote, and it was a common chain of thinking among some.

What has happened to the Republican party is that it has merged with a demographic of "evangenlical christians"  such that they see themselves as one and the same.  Thus, their religious beliefs tend to not just inform decisions but dominate political objectives like forcing the hateful chapter in the old bible that Jesus didn't write on everybody else.

Thus, religion is very much meddling in government in Republican held territories.

That's too much politics, sorry about that.

I'll leave with this. I got to watch a speech by George Takei last month at Comicpalooza in Houston.  He said he was fighting for gay rights for everybody and everybody's kids' and so on.  The reason was simple.  In a family where hate is learned.  If a kid is born gay in that kind of family, it disrupts things.  Nobody's happy, kid gets put out, the parents and siblings are suffering a loss as real as death.  All over some artificial restriction people picked up from a moldy chapter in their holy book.  Once folks accept gay people as simply people, families won't be upset or broken.  That is a massive reduction in family trauma and sadness.  Whether your straight or gay, that's a pretty massive social benefit, just by removing hate for the way somebody was born.  George said it better, but he'd had a lot of practice explaining it.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> Basically, my question was third post deep, and everyone just read my post out of context.




No. Bullgrit.  We didn't read it out of context.  We didn't understand that the issue was semantic, rather than conceptual.


----------



## trappedslider

Bullgrit said:


> Apparently there are some folks afraid that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings, against their principles. I have noticed that no one has been correcting or contradicting that fear.
> 
> And I note that there is now at least a little precedence for this fear -- telling a private bakery that they must accept and fulfill a cake order for a gay wedding, against the owner's/baker's principles.
> 
> As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles. Is it possible that churches can be forced to perform gay weddings? Why, or why not?
> Bullgrit




I've seen that stuff including an op-ed in the Times saying that now's the time to end  tax-exempt status for religious institutions. All it will take is one law suit to open that can up. 

After discussing it with a number of friends both online and offline, and seeing the moves that The LDS church (Which I'm a member of) has made with regards to adoption, we think that it's only a matter of time before The Church decides officially decides that no one can have a wedding at local units and that they will do what they have done in Europe with Temples, which is only a sealing and not a wedding.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I would agree, also, if someone said religion meddles with government, but how does religion skip the middle man and meddle in one's life? (Assuming one is not of that religion, and thereby tacitly agrees to abide by that religion.)




Agreed that it is usually through the implementation of the power of government- either by the votes of the faithful swaying things one way or the other, or by the actions of the faithful once in office.  Religion rarely has enough power in the West to act without the fulcrum of government precisely because those governments are at least nominally secular.

But that isn't to say that it doesn't have massive power. Power that ripples.

Look at the Texas School Board: what they approve or disapprove helps drive the nationwide schoolbook market by sheer size of their slice of said market.  If you actually look at their recommendations, you'll see some really disturbing trends.

In my home state of Louisiana, kids are being taught Intelligent Design in public schools.  (God & courts willing, not for much longer.)  That has serious educational and economic repercussions for the future of that state in particular, and the country in general.

Guess what US demographic is more likely to believe the position of climate science denial?  The so-called "religious right"...and in numbers unheard of in other western nations.


----------



## nerfherder

Bullgrit said:


> But in what way does religion directly meddle in someone's life? I already said that I agree that religion wants to use government to meddle, as do many organizations, (e.g. Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, etc.). I would agree, also, if someone said religion meddles with government, but how does religion skip the middle man and meddle in one's life? (Assuming one is not of that religion, and thereby tacitly agrees to abide by that religion.)



Something you may not have considered - not all Western democracies have separation of Church and State.  In the UK, 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops are appointed to sit in the House of Lords.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan

Bullgrit said:


> Actually, she, unless I've lost track of who said what.
> 
> Bullgrit




If we're talking about me, then, yes, "she" is correct.  

Back on topic (ish), the difference between a door-to-door religion peddler and a Google ad is that the Google ad isn't invading my privacy (unless there's a virus or something attached to it) or interrupting my dinner.


----------



## tomBitonti

trappedslider said:


> I've seen that stuff including an op-ed in the Times saying that now's the time to end  tax-exempt status for religious institutions. All it will take is one law suit to open that can up.
> 
> After discussing it with a number of friends both online and offline, and seeing the moves that The LDS church (Which I'm a member of) has made with regards to adoption, we think that it's only a matter of time before The Church decides officially decides that no one can have a wedding at local units and that they will do what they have done in Europe with Temples, which is only a sealing and not a wedding.




I'm curious: What is a sealing, and how does it differ from a wedding?  But, I'm not sure if you mean a wedding ceremony or the agreement that it represents (or, from a more religious view: the sacrament that it bestows).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## JamesonCourage

Bullgrit said:


> I find the idea that "love" won this legal argument a bit troublesome. This suggests that the judges decided based on emotion rather than legal reasoning. I'd prefer that this won because it is legally right and sound within our laws, instead of it won because someone's heart grew three sizes that day. Does this make me a bad person?



I wouldn't use the term "bad person" to describe you, but I know that there is no way in heck I'm supporting (or even obeying or observing) laws that I think are blatantly immoral. If I was in the military, there'd be no way I'd "just follow orders" and do what I was told -I'd go along as long as I didn't think it was wrong.

I get people not supporting the SSM decision because they think it's wrong. But, from where I'm sitting, if I need to make decisions based on the "law" or based on doing the right thing, I support illegally abandoning bad laws.

Morals > laws.


----------



## trappedslider

tomBitonti said:


> I'm curious: What is a sealing, and how does it differ from a wedding?  But, I'm not sure if you mean a wedding ceremony or the agreement that it represents (or, from a more religious view: the sacrament that it bestows).
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




First off, we believe that Families can be together forever. What this means is that by keeping The Lord's commandments that families can be together even after death. How this happens is done via being sealed together which means that they can be together both here on Earth and in Heaven.

In fact here's  some links that can explain better than I can http://www.mormonwiki.com/Celestial_marriage
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormonism_and_Marriage


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Civilly disobeying an unjust or immoral law is not inherently a bad thing.  You could even say it is a human right.

However, a problem arises when the law tries too hard to shield persons from the consequences of such disobedience before the fact.  A law providing blanket protection against prosecution for disobeying a SCOTUS decision- such as is being proposed in several stated- is bad law on the face of it.


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Civilly disobeying an unjust or immoral law is not inherently a bad thing.  You could even say it is a human right.
> 
> However, a problem arises when the law tries too hard to shield persons from the consequences of such disobedience before the fact.  A law providing blanket protection against prosecution for disobeying a SCOTUS decision- such as is being proposed in several stated- is bad law on the face of it.




I wonder if an example of this concept you present is that Snowden guy who leaked all the info about government surveilance.

he broke the law, on the premise (to him) that what the government was doing was wrongbadfun and that the people's right to know was greater than the government's right to have secrets.

He is of course subject to the laws he broke in doing so.

But he may have had a Human Right to stand up to a wrong.

I would guess the questions are, in that case, if the government was guilty of badwrongfun, does that grant him a pass/leniency for his crime in revealing that info?  Are there laws for that kind of thing?
The inverse also applies (which gets back to the topic), if he stands up and was wrong about the badwrongfun, does he have any protection/exception for doing what he "thought" was right?  Which is presumably what the anti-SCOTUS-decision folks think they are doing.

That's probably the grey area if I say something is evil, and you say it isn't, who's right?


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> I would guess the questions are, in that case, if the government was guilty of badwrongfun, does that grant him a pass/leniency for his crime in revealing that info?  Are there laws for that kind of thing?




If the government was doing something illegal, then there are whistleblower laws that should apply.  I don't know if they cover things of quite this magnitude.

However, by my understanding, nothing that Snowden leaked was illegal.  It was just that the public really didn't know what kind of things were now allowed under the law.  There is currently no protection for that, as I understand it.  You aren't allowed to break the law to fix someone else's ignorance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As i recall, Snowden uncovered a lot of less than savory stuff, but- last I checked- nothing actually illegal.  Maybe some that SHOULD be, but nothing actually against the law.  

As for what is evil?  That is a philosophical/moral question, not a legal one.  And that distinction is one of the reasons why the Founders wanted strong separation of Church & State; we're a nation of laws, not a theocracy.

So, in a way, a partial answer to what you should do if you find a law you find immoral affecting your work is that you should find another line of work.


----------



## tomBitonti

trappedslider said:


> First off, we believe that Families can be together forever. What this means is that by keeping The Lord's commandments that families can be together even after death. How this happens is done via being sealed together which means that they can be together both here on Earth and in Heaven.
> 
> In fact here's  some links that can explain better than I can http://www.mormonwiki.com/Celestial_marriage
> http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormonism_and_Marriage




Interesting.  From one of the links:



> If a man and woman are married by a civilly recognized authority (such as a government or religious representative), then the couple can be sealed together so that their marriage will be "bound" on both earth and in heaven. If a couple was not previously married, they can be both married and sealed together at the same time, consistent with local laws.




It sounds like LDS are doing what is prescribed by some on this thread: Having civil marriage be a thing done by courts, with such a marriage enacted by a wedding, but possibly by a civil ceremony, and having an extra religious type of marriage (a Celestial Marriage, in the LDS terminology), which has much deeper religious significance, and having a different ceremony (a Sealing) to enact.  From the small reading that I did, a marriage may or may not be at the same ceremony as a sealing, and very possibly is done in different ceremonies.

I would presume that LDS does not accept GLB sealings, but do they accept GLB marriages?

I'm not really wanting to focus overmuch on The Church of Latter Day Saints here, other than to determine the features of marriage that they use, since the features are interesting in the context of this thread.  That is, I'm not interested in the details of what a Celestial Marriage really means, other than it having a special religious significance to Mormons.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As i recall, Snowden uncovered a lot of less than savory stuff, but- last I checked- nothing actually illegal.  Maybe some that SHOULD be, but nothing actually against the law.




Wasn't bulk collection of metadata found to be beyond the scope of what was allowed by one of the data collection laws, hence, illegal?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran

tomBitonti said:


> I would presume that LDS does not accept GLB sealings, but do they accept GLB marriages?




Well, they wouldn't have to, then.  "Marriage" becomes, for them, an entirely civil concern.  None of their business.  A non-issue.  Kind of like asking if the NFL accepts pinch hitters - the question doesn't apply.


----------



## Umbran

tomBitonti said:


> Wasn't bulk collection of metadata found to be beyond the scope of what was allowed by one of the data collection laws, hence, illegal?




Not as far as I am aware.  The law has since changed, such that some of that bulk collection is no longer legal.


----------



## tomBitonti

Umbran said:


> Not as far as I am aware.  The law has since changed, such that some of that bulk collection is no longer legal.




This seems to say the collection was illegal. Not just, is currently illegal by the amended law, but, was illegal by the laws in effect at the time:

NSA's Bulk Collection Of Americans' Phone Data Is Illegal, Appeals Court Rules

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal

My understanding is that a part of the revelation of the bulk collection was by the materiel that Snowden leaked.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

tomBitonti said:


> Wasn't bulk collection of metadata found to be beyond the scope of what was allowed by one of the data collection laws, hence, illegal?
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




Damn if I know- after a certain point in the media storm, I tuned out.


----------



## Umbran

tomBitonti said:


> This seems to say the collection was illegal. Not just, is currently illegal by the amended law, but, was illegal by the laws in effect at the time:
> 
> NSA's Bulk Collection Of Americans' Phone Data Is Illegal, Appeals Court Rules
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal




Except that another court has noted that the Second Circuit court that issued that ruling does not have jurisdiction - so, rather than it being the rule of law, it is an opinion.  The bulk collection has been re-authorized for the 180 grace period allowed by the USA Freedom Act, before it has to stop.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...approves-nsa-bulk-collection-spying-end-2015/


----------



## trappedslider

tomBitonti said:


> Interesting.  From one of the links:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like LDS are doing what is prescribed by some on this thread: Having civil marriage be a thing done by courts, with such a marriage enacted by a wedding, but possibly by a civil ceremony, and having an extra religious type of marriage (a Celestial Marriage, in the LDS terminology), which has much deeper religious significance, and having a different ceremony (a Sealing) to enact.  From the small reading that I did, a marriage may or may not be at the same ceremony as a sealing, and very possibly is done in different ceremonies.
> 
> I would presume that LDS does not accept GLB sealings, but do they accept GLB marriages?
> 
> 
> TomB




 The first presidency has released a letter that will be read to each congregation this coming Sunday http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...fter-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision


----------



## tomBitonti

trappedslider said:


> The first presidency has released a letter that will be read to each congregation this coming Sunday http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...fter-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision




Ok, says enough.  I don't think a continuation of this portion of the thread will turn out well, so I defer a continuation.

Peace and love,

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

For those keeping score:

http://news.yahoo.com/episcopalians-vote-allowing-gay-marriage-churches-064849720.html

With this vote, I believe the Episcopalians become the largest Christian denomination to endorse SSM.  More importantly, they're one of the historically more politically powerful Christian denominations in the USA.

Combined with certain other Christian & Jewish denominations, Wiccans, some Native American religions, and about a dozen other faith traditions practiced in the USA, this makes revocation of SSM increasingly unlikely on the precise grounds that most opponents cite: religious freedom.

Battles still remain, but the trend is definitely going a certain way with a sense of final inevitability.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Combined with certain other Christian & Jewish denominations, Wiccans, some Native American religions, and about a dozen other faith traditions practiced in the USA, this makes revocation of SSM increasingly unlikely on the precise grounds that most opponents cite: religious freedom.




Simply for the sake of perspective, I would like to remind everyone that not all members of a religion adhere to official opinions of their religious leaders.

I, for example, am Catholic, and I celebrate the Supreme Court's holding on same-sex marriage.  Religious institutions are administered by people, and people (even the best of us) are flawed and make mistakes.  I have been very happy to see Pope Francis' softening of the church's objection to homosexuality, including when he said the following, "if someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge."

That sentiment from the pope summed up how I have felt about gays (and about people in general if you cut the gay part out) for decades, despite other popes and bishops having taken hard-line stances against homosexuality.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> I, for example, am Catholic, and I celebrate the Supreme Court's holding on same-sex marriage.



FWIW, ditto.


----------



## Janx

MechaPilot said:


> Simply for the sake of perspective, I would like to remind everyone that not all members of a religion adhere to official opinions of their religious leaders.
> 
> I, for example, am Catholic, and I celebrate the Supreme Court's holding on same-sex marriage.  Religious institutions are administered by people, and people (even the best of us) are flawed and make mistakes.  I have been very happy to see Pope Francis' softening of the church's objection to homosexuality, including when he said the following, "if someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge."
> 
> That sentiment from the pope summed up how I have felt about gays (and about people in general if you cut the gay part out) for decades, despite other popes and bishops having taken hard-line stances against homosexuality.




It's been my experience, that for any church with X quanity of members inside, there are X variations on the religion that they all claim to be following.  Each person will have some detail wrong that the rules lawyers of the church would call heresy or some official position they disagree with.

I've met plenty of catholics who believe in birth control for instance.


----------



## Morrus

Janx said:


> I've met plenty of catholics who believe in birth control for instance.




I assure you it exists.


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> Not as far as I am aware.  The law has since changed, such that some of that bulk collection is no longer legal.




And I didn't mean to side track the gay rights to snowden.

I was only using it as an example where a person thought they were doing right, and will likely have negative legal consequences for their action, regardless of whether their were correct or not.


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> I was only using it as an example where a person thought they were doing right, and will likely have negative legal consequences for their action, regardless of whether their were correct or not.




It is a fact of life that sometimes, in order to be right, you have to be incorrect. Correctness is a matter of rules, and the rules as written may not match moral, right action.


Or...

We can bring this back to gaming!  Good and Evil are about being "right".  Law and Chaos are about being "correct"


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> It is a fact of life that sometimes, in order to be right, you have to be incorrect. Correctness is a matter of rules, and the rules as written may not match moral, right action.
> 
> 
> Or...
> 
> We can bring this back to gaming!  Good and Evil are about being "right".  Law and Chaos are about being "correct"




You don't have to tell me that twice. A certain technical qualification, that's supposed to demonstrate a baseline of knowledge in desktop based computing, involves a pair of tests. After a quarter century in the industry I quickly realized that I had to answer a large number of those questions wrongly, from my practical experience, in order to be "correct."

Not agreeing with a religion's "laws" tends to result in a new religion, or so history would tend to indicate.


----------



## Wik

nerfherder said:


> Something you may not have considered - not all Western democracies have separation of Church and State.  In the UK, 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops are appointed to sit in the House of Lords.




Ok, I'm curious.  What exactly do you mean here?  Are they pushed through without a vote?  The House of Lords is similar to the Senate in the US and Canada, correct?  In that it's appointed by political appointment, not through a vote?

Do these church of England appointments have to be filled?  I'm unsure about exactly what you mean here.  Because, as JFK made sure everyone understood some fifty-odd years ago, "Seperation of Church and State" does not mean that you can't belong to a church and still be an elected official.  And, as we see in the US all the bloody time, voting based on your religious beliefs does not violate the whole church and state thinger.


----------



## pedr

There are three ways to become a member of the House of Lords, which is like the US or Canadian senates in its position in the legislature (far more like Canada, I think). 

The main way is to be appointed a Life Peer. This is usually a political appointment, with conventions ensuring that the current ruling party doesn't just appoint its own members. 

The second is to be one of 92 hereditary peers elected by the other hereditary nobles. These seats are what remains of the pre-1950s situation where all entitlement to sit in the Lords was because you inherited a noble title (or a hereditary title was created for you, which was very rare). 

The third, relevant to this thread, is to be the Archbishop of Canterbury or York, or one of the longest serving/most senior 24 diocesan Bishops of the Church of England. These are ex officio seats. No-one would create that system today, but constitutions get things which only exist because of history, over time (no-one would create the U.S. Electoral College today,  for instance). If we ever manage to agree on how to reform the House of Lords it would undoubtedly change, and it doesn't do much harm. It's the clearest indication that there's no formal separation between the UK state and the Church of England, though.


----------



## Neonchameleon

JRRNeiklot said:


> Marriage is a religious institution.






JRRNeiklot said:


> So why are you married if there's nothing religious about it?  Do you really need a piece of paper to stay committed to her and her to you?  Suppose the government ruled your marriage null and void today.  Would you rush out and cheat on her?




Marriage is and has always been a secular legal institution that comes with certain rights and privileges. And the only reason priests have any right to marry people at all is because they hold a license to do so from the state - and this applies even where there is a state church such as in Britain. Jumping over a broomstick has the same legal weight as getting married in a cathedral. If you want to get the people making a power grab out of marriage, then you can get the interlopers out and let people have a Religious Marriage with no leagal weight at all rather than allow the naked power grab and attempt to redefine the institution of marriage from something secular to something religious to continue.

Now you personally might want to utterly change the institution of marriage to something with no legal weight at all. But that doesn't make this anything other than a radical redefinition of what marriage is. And an attempt by you to change the status of every single married person there currently is.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Kansas Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages — But Not Same-Sex Tax Filings.

Because you know, Kansas is special. A guy can marry another guy, but filing taxes together somehow discriminates against religious institutions. Go figure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Kansas is a hot mess right now.


----------



## trappedslider

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Kansas is a hot mess right now.




When wasn't it? lol


----------



## billd91

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Kansas Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages — But Not Same-Sex Tax Filings.
> 
> Because you know, Kansas is special. A guy can marry another guy, but filing taxes together somehow discriminates against religious institutions. Go figure.




Obvious lawsuit. Waste of more taxpayer money to defend it when the outcome should be pretty certain. Can we bust them back to territory and force them to start over?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Neonchameleon said:


> Marriage is and has always been a secular legal institution that comes with certain rights and privileges.




Marriage predates history at the very least, and very probably civilization.  Ask an anthropologist.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power over marriage.  Nor should there be.  Regardless, this is a thread about children rejoicing because their parents let them sit at the table with the big kids, not about government overreach, which is the real problem, so I'll bow out and let you guys have more cake.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

JRRNeiklot said:


> Marriage predates history at the very least, and very probably civilization.  Ask an anthropologist.




...and, as such, has had more than one set of parameters.  In some cultures, it has been purely religious.  In others, a construct of the state.  Some have multiple and/or blended marriage constructs.

Something a lot of "Marriage has always been..." types have no real grasp on.



> There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power over marriage.




Yes there is, it's just not explicit.


----------



## Janx

JRRNeiklot said:


> Marriage predates history at the very least, and very probably civilization.  Ask an anthropologist.
> 
> There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power over marriage.  Nor should there be.  Regardless, this is a thread about children rejoicing because their parents let them sit at the table with the big kids, not about government overreach, which is the real problem, so I'll bow out and let you guys have more cake.




This last part seems a bit insulting and I don't think it makes the conversation better.


----------



## Umbran

JRRNeiklot said:


> Regardless, this is a thread about children rejoicing because their parents let them sit at the table with the big kids...





Ladies and gentlemen...

The normal rules of civility hold in politics threads.  Calling people children for having an opinion that differs from yours?  Not civil.  Don't do it.


----------



## Zaukrie

For 2000 years we were told divorce was a sin. It was against the law in much of the west. Then, it wasn't. I don't hear many calling for that to be reversed. Same is now happening with marriage.


----------



## I'm A Banana

MechaPilot said:


> Simply for the sake of perspective, I would like to remind everyone that not all members of a religion adhere to official opinions of their religious leaders.
> 
> I, for example, am Catholic, and I celebrate the Supreme Court's holding on same-sex marriage.  Religious institutions are administered by people, and people (even the best of us) are flawed and make mistakes.  I have been very happy to see Pope Francis' softening of the church's objection to homosexuality, including when he said the following, "if someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge."
> 
> That sentiment from the pope summed up how I have felt about gays (and about people in general if you cut the gay part out) for decades, despite other popes and bishops having taken hard-line stances against homosexuality.




FWIW, Pope Francis has been making a _lot_ of enemies in the American Conserve-o-verse.

From his liberal-for-a-Catholic stance on homosexuality to his harping on about global warming and human stewardship to his rather continuous theme of human greed being one of the great evils of our day, he's making the recent American Catholic alliance with fundamentalist Protestant denominations a little more tenuous than it was a pope or two ago.

Personally, as a student of religion and culture, this has been really _fascinating_ to watch.


----------



## Ryujin

Kamikaze Midget said:


> FWIW, Pope Francis has been making a _lot_ of enemies in the American Conserve-o-verse.
> 
> From his liberal-for-a-Catholic stance on homosexuality to his harping on about global warming and human stewardship to his rather continuous theme of human greed being one of the great evils of our day, he's making the recent American Catholic alliance with fundamentalist Protestant denominations a little more tenuous than it was a pope or two ago.
> 
> Personally, as a student of religion and culture, this has been really _fascinating_ to watch.




A rather interesting turn-around from the days when the American Catholic Church was trying to reclaim its position and the days of sandal wearing, guitar playing priests. no?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Personally, as a student of religion and culture, this has been really _fascinating_ to watch.




Imagine what it's like for a Catholic like me!

I mean, I can't say he and I are in complete agreement, but he is saying many things I have.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Ryujin said:


> A rather interesting turn-around from the days when the American Catholic Church was trying to reclaim its position and the days of sandal wearing, guitar playing priests. no?




I'm tellin' ya, everything changed after Vatican II and the masses being said in English. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Imagine what it's like for a Catholic like me!
> 
> I mean, I can't say he and I are in complete agreement, but he is saying many things I have.




I think it's interesting that, broadly speaking, American Catholics kind of regard the pope more like an _advisor_ on matters of religion rather than an _authority_. Like, JPII saying birth control is bad didn't stop most American Catholics from saying "no it isn't" and using it anyway.  

I think Francis's stuff on wealth and poverty is interesting, because that does kind of contradict the Protestant Ethic / Divine Right of Kings / Prosperity Gospel dominant cultural narrative in the US (in a way that highlights some significant divides between Catholicism, which tends to believe that poverty is an abuse of the powerful, and American Protestantism, which is a lot more Calvinist), but there have been a lot of chinks in that armor globally since 2008. It'll be interesting to see if the economically progressive wing of American Catholics gets stirred up again, or if this expands the gulf between what happens in the US and what happens in Rome and most of the rest of the Catholic world. 

As far as gay rights specifically goes, I like that the Pope's take on Peter's Vision seems to be in line with Peter's own take on it.  It's almost a _strength_ of Catholicism at the moment that it has one dude who sort of sets the conversation for everyone - it can adapt and change, even if some segments offer a bit of resistance. Some strains of fundamental Protestantism seem to be still stuck in the 1800's, though, and it's harder to set the conversation when there's not one guy, but a whole room full of very loud people insisting that _they_ have it right and that you need to listen to _them_. Protestantism (and Islam, though in a different context) can be a lot like that sometimes. 

Like, I don't know that Catholics have any less actual disagreement, but it's not like most folks who call themselves Catholic would say the Pope is a sinner who is going to hell for his wrong beliefs, even if they disagreed with him. They'll at least be like "he makes some good points, but..."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The American Catholic Church & its flock tends to be a LOT more liberal than anywhere else in the world.

And it wasn't so much Francis' speeches that busted open the split between us and the Protestants- it was the 2012 election.  As I have repeatedly pointed out to more conservative Catholics of my acquaintance (like my Mom & her best bud), despite the problems our clergy has with Obama and the Democrats, our Bishops and nuns composed and published a condemnation of the Rommey/Ryan budget as- and I quote- "unchristian."  That's a pretty potent broadside.

(Really, Ryan- how DOES one reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Christianity?)


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Really, Ryan- how DOES one reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Christianity?)




Maybe by using an earlier version of Christianity that allow for buying indulgences.

"I got mine, so screw you" works pretty well with Christendom if you can then turn around and give the church a cut to reserve some cloud space for you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> Maybe by using an earlier version of Christianity that allow for buying indulgences.
> 
> "I got mine, so screw you" works pretty well with Christendom if you can then turn around and give the church a cut to reserve some cloud space for you.




[video=youtube;jgWUi-ozMAU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgWUi-ozMAU&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Really, Ryan- how DOES one reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Christianity?)




By thinking that "Thou shalt not..." meant everyone else.


----------



## Staffan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Really, Ryan- how DOES one reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Christianity?)




Being an atheist, I think it's rather remarkable that the people who shout the loudest about God seem to be the ones who missed the point the most. Greedy, war-mongering, prideful, judgmental hypocrites.

Edit: Not referring to any particular person *here*, but rather those politicians and others who use their Christianity as a club with which to beat others.


----------



## Umbran

Staffan said:


> Being an atheist, I think it's rather remarkable that the people who shout the loudest about God seem to be the ones who missed the point the most. Greedy, war-mongering, prideful, judgmental hypocrites.
> 
> Edit: Not referring to any particular person *here*, but rather those politicians and others who use their Christianity as a club with which to beat others.




It is those people who need something to help push their agendas and justify their actions that need to shout the loudest.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The American Catholic Church & its flock tends to be a LOT more liberal than anywhere else in the world.
> 
> And it wasn't so much Francis' speeches that busted open the split between us and the Protestants- it was the 2012 election.  As I have repeatedly pointed out to more conservative Catholics of my acquaintance (like my Mom & her best bud), despite the problems our clergy has with Obama and the Democrats, our Bishops and nuns composed and published a condemnation of the Rommey/Ryan budget as- and I quote- "unchristian."  That's a pretty potent broadside.




There are some AWESOME nuns out there.  



> (Really, Ryan- how DOES one reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Christianity?)




Generally, by ignoring the reality of both.  

I can't imagine Rand would've been happy with cherry-picked bits of her philosophy being offered up alongside prayers to Jesus, a man she never had great love for, and the most Biblically-inspired economic system would maybe be a sort of communism by way of helping each other. 

But these days talking about Jesus a lot and also talking about the virtues of small government and free market economics a lot go hand-in-hand.


----------



## Talmek

Regarding gay rights, same-sex marriage, etc.

If you want to get married (you're more foolish than I thought - why on earth anyone would really *want* to get married is beyond me) then more power to you. I've worked in extremely close proximity with homosexuals (being in the military in the "don't ask, don't tell" era) I can tell you that we all bled the same color and although you probably didn't want to run around advertising it to the general public/command structure, my unit's leadership was really more concerned about whether or not you could actually uphold the standards to achieve the mission rather than whether you liked boys, girls, chickens, et al.

Now that I'm a civilian (and a Catholic convert) my views have not really changed. I'm of the mindset that what you do in your life, provided that you are not harming anyone else, is yours to do with what you want. Further, I come from a school of thought that emphasizes that we are to tolerate one another, regardless of whether or not we agree with each other. 

However, I do also wish to make the statement that while I respect someone's rights to live their life as they see fit, I do NOT agree with some of the boundary-pushing behaviors that I have witnessed in some "pride" events. If you want to gain credibility and be taken seriously, walking around in public in a neon banana hammock screaming your sexual preference to all those who would listen, while entertaining, is not going to get you the results that you so greatly desire (and in most cases deserve - i.e. fair treatment in a court of law, mutual respect for basic human rights, protection from hate crimes). Rather, extreme and escalatory behaviors will beget the same from the opposition.

Remember - tolerance above all else.


----------



## MechaPilot

Talmek said:


> However, I do also wish to make the statement that while I respect someone's rights to live their life as they see fit, I do NOT agree with some of the boundary-pushing behaviors that I have witnessed in some "pride" events. If you want to gain credibility and be taken seriously, walking around in public in a neon banana hammock screaming your sexual preference to all those who would listen, while entertaining, is not going to get you the results that you so greatly desire (and in most cases deserve - i.e. fair treatment in a court of law, mutual respect for basic human rights, protection from hate crimes). Rather, extreme and escalatory behaviors will beget the same from the opposition.
> 
> Remember - tolerance above all else.




While I agree with almost everything you said in your post, which was quite good by the way, I just want to point out that pride events are not about gaining credibility.  Credibility comes from the fact that we are all people and are all deserving of the same rights and protections under the law, even if someone else's religion says what you do is an "abomination" (which is, coincidentally speaking, how the eating of shellfish is described in the bible).

In general, I see pride events as having two different purposes:

1) A pride event can be a release valve for people who have to put up with restraining who they are under normal circumstances, such as when college students go crazy on spring break because of all the work they had to invest in studying.

And

2) You generally cannot tell a person's sexuality just from looking at them.  So a pride event is an in-your-face way of saying we're a part of society and we aren't going away.


----------



## Talmek

MechaPilot said:


> While I agree with almost everything you said in your post, which was quite good by the way, I just want to point out that pride events are not about gaining credibility.  Credibility comes from the fact that we are all people and are all deserving of the same rights and protections under the law, even if someone else's religion says what you do is an "abomination" (which is, coincidentally speaking, how the eating of shellfish is described in the bible).
> 
> In general, I see pride events as having two different purposes:
> 
> 1) A pride event can be a release valve for people who have to put up with restraining who they are under normal circumstances, such as when college students go crazy on spring break because of all the work they had to invest in studying.
> 
> And
> 
> 2) You generally cannot tell a person's sexuality just from looking at them.  So a pride event is an in-your-face way of saying we're a part of society and we aren't going away.




Thank you for the compliment. Courtesy has become far too rare in this world so it becomes more noticeable...white hats in a black world and so on...

Also, I was under the mistaken impression that pride events were akin to the civil rights marches of the 1960s rather than a spring break event. If this is accurate than the misunderstanding is mine and I would only suggest spending more time lobbying politicians and organizing political marches than spending time looking for release. In my opinion focusing on the political aspect (as distasteful as that is) is the only way a minority group will gain the clout needed to influence lawmakers, etc.

Granted, everyone deserves an opportunity to blow off some steam (as a war veteran who poses daily as a civilian rather than what I believe I should have been in my life I can relate...in a small way, at least); but again I would have to say find a more...acceptable method than spitting on people or being quite so "in your face". It takes away from the overall cause, in my opinion. 

To any "Christian" who would find it necessary to quote the Old Testament to someone...here's a couple of reminders/rebuttals from the New Testament (aka the new teachings that were supposed to override the old):

Matthew 7:1 - _"Do not judge so that you will not be judged._
Matthew 22:37-22:40 - _And He said to him, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and first commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF._
John 8:7 - _But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."_

There are plenty more, but in the couple of instances where I've seen someone who's pretty self-righteous bringing down someone else they don't typically stand around long enough for me to finish YELLING these scriptures at them in a Drill Sergeant's voice to help them remember that we are supposed to HELP OTHERS...or at a minimum...tolerate them.

Just my take I suppose.


----------



## MechaPilot

Talmek said:


> Thank you for the compliment. Courtesy has become far too rare in this world so it becomes more noticeable...white hats in a black world and so on...




You're welcome.  In general, I try to converse online as I would in real life: I don't see the relative anonymity of the internet to be an excuse for bad behavior, and I appreciate it when others try to be civil as well.




Talmek said:


> Also, I was under the mistaken impression that pride events were akin to the civil rights marches of the 1960s rather than a spring break event. If this is accurate than the misunderstanding is mine and I would only suggest spending more time lobbying politicians and organizing political marches than spending time looking for release. In my opinion focusing on the political aspect (as distasteful as that is) is the only way a minority group will gain the clout needed to influence lawmakers, etc.




I think it depends on the event in question.  I'm sure some pride events are marches and protests where the message should outweigh the noise of an overly ostentatious display.  However, based on some of the footage I've seen from pride parades, I am equally certain that some of them are just occasions to let loose and be oneself; or, perhaps to be more showy than one would normally be, like a fan wearing a skimpy costume for a comic con when she doesn't normally dress that way.




Talmek said:


> Granted, everyone deserves an opportunity to blow off some steam (as a war veteran who poses daily as a civilian rather than what I believe I should have been in my life I can relate...in a small way, at least); but again I would have to say find a more...acceptable method than spitting on people or being quite so "in your face". It takes away from the overall cause, in my opinion.




I've never seen the spitting on people thing (assuming you mean that literally), and I consider that poor behavior regardless of the occasion.  If you mean figuratively spitting on people, then I can only say that 1) that depends on the person (certain politicians and social advocates are likely to get that kind of treatment at a pride event), and 2) sometimes people go to extremes when they let off steam (which is merely an explanation and not an excuse).


----------



## Dire Bare

Talmek said:


> However, I do also wish to make the statement that while I respect someone's rights to live their life as they see fit, I do NOT agree with some of the boundary-pushing behaviors that I have witnessed in some "pride" events. If you want to gain credibility and be taken seriously, walking around in public in a neon banana hammock screaming your sexual preference to all those who would listen, while entertaining, is not going to get you the results that you so greatly desire (and in most cases deserve - i.e. fair treatment in a court of law, mutual respect for basic human rights, protection from hate crimes). Rather, extreme and escalatory behaviors will beget the same from the opposition.




Have you read the entire thread yet? It's long, but (mostly) civil and we've already gone round on this one. Your position seems similar to Bullgrit's.

My response to being uncomfortable with displays of flamboyance, is, well, this:



			
				Talmet said:
			
		

> Remember - tolerance above all else.


----------



## Dire Bare

Bullgrit said:


> But you're ok with my mocking Southerners and NASCAR? [And doesn't NAMBLA have "love" in it's very name? I can't believe I'm talking about NAMBLA.] I just assumed we probably didn't have any furry sexers around here. If we do, I apologize for picking on them. I'll stick to picking on my own culture.
> 
> Bullgrit




Bullgrit, I'm assuming you are a southerner and white . . . forgive me if my assumptions are off. When someone mocks something that is within their own culture, it's often given a pass. When someone mocks something outside of their culture, especially something that represents a discriminated against minority, it's very different. Not that it makes it OK.

We really shouldn't mock southerners, or "rednecks", (whether they are NASCAR fans or not) as it is a negative stereotype that doesn't hold true for many southerners. But since white southerners aren't an oppressed minority, "redneck" jokes won't get you the same reactions as racist jokes about black people or homophobic jokes. For the truly tolerant, none of these types of discrimination are acceptable, but it's hard to be 100% tolerant, because, well, we are human and tribal. Not that we shouldn't try, we most certainly should.

It's also a question of scale, or "ranking". Negative, discriminatory thoughts and actions against non-whites and non-straights is a HUGE problem in our country (USA), although certainly worse in other areas of the world. Discrimination against whites from any part of the country, and discrimination against fans of NASCAR, exist, but really aren't high on the list of "problems that need to be solved yesterday".


----------



## Dire Bare

trappedslider said:


> So, now that same sex marriage is legal will the gay rights activist now work on getting Bigamy legalize? What about polygamy? And those who wish to marry in the family? Or was it not really about marriage equality for all,but just for them?




Why don't gay-rights activists fight for poly-rights? Because they are gay activists, not poly-activists! I'm sure there are gay people who feel that poly marriages should be legal, but have their hands full fighting for their own rights. Gaining the right to marry is big, but the struggle for equal rights is far from over. And, as Dannyalcatraz has pointed out, legalizing poly marriage would be a complex undertaking. In comparison, same-sex marriage legalization is cake (from a Christian bakery, no less)!

I personally believe that polygamous marriage should be 100% legal here in the USA, and I support the poly friends that I do have. But I'm not a poly-rights activist, in part because I'm a straight, monogamous dude, and not having the right to marry more than one spouse isn't high on my personal needs list. But I would certainly support a "poly-rights movement" if one ever crops up.

I took the same approach to same-sex marriage. I have long believed that gay people should have the same rights as straight people 100%. But, as a straight guy, not having the right to marry another guy doesn't set me back much. So, I am not a gay-rights activist. But I do support my gay friends and I am very pleased with the recent Supreme Court ruling.

And, gay people are people too, in every respect. Some gay people are racist, some hate on Muslims right along with the Fox News crowd, and some do not support the idea of polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages.

For poly folks to enjoy equal marriage, there needs to be a poly-rights movement fronted by polyamorous/polygamous folks. Just like the gay-rights movement largely consists of and is led by gay people. Far as I know, the poly community in the USA is very small and not politically organized. But, while I do have poly friends, I'm not in touch with what's going on within the poly community, so I could be wrong.

_NOTE: Please be aware that polygamy is not just practiced by a Mormon splinter group in the western USA, and is not characterized by power imbalances and child abuse. Polygamous marriages HAVE been used to create power imbalances, usually in favor of men, but the same can be said about "traditional" marriage. Polygamous marriages have been a part of many cultures throughout the world, both in the present day and in past times all the way back to pre-history. Some structures allow for one man to have multiple wives, others allow for one woman to have multiple husbands, and some allow for multiple wives and multiple husbands. Just the concept of polygamous marriage itself is a complex beast, and to legalize it within the USA might be the right thing to do, but it would be difficult and complex even if 100% of our society would be cool with it, which, we obviously aren't._

Do I hope we get there someday? Yes. Do I judge my monogamous straight and gay friends for not adding poly-rights to their activism? No.

*TL;DR: Same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage (which includes bigamy) are not the same issue at all. Related, yes, but not remotely the same.*


----------



## Dire Bare

Janx said:


> I think it's more of a matter that if you're going to insist Marriage is a religious institution then the government must refuse to recognize it.  period.  Jerks can't have their cake and eat it too. Basically, if you're going to insist that some folks can't get married, then nobody gets to be married.




Which is an argument that some jurisdictions are now using to avoid complying with the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. They aren't issuing ANY marriage licenses at all!

And since marriage is most definitely a legal status and a civil institution, this is problematic for everybody who lives within those jurisdictions. Well, everybody who wants to get married, religious or not.


----------



## Dire Bare

trappedslider said:


> So, now that same sex marriage is legal will the gay rights activist now work on getting Bigamy legalize? What about polygamy? And those who wish to marry in the family? Or was it not really about marriage equality for all,but just for them?




Aw, heck! I might as well address the incest issue as well. Why not?

To equate gay marriage, or even polygamous marriage, with incest is disingenuous at best. Manufacturing constructed outrage at worst.

The most quoted reason why incest is not a great thing is procreation. If two people commit incest and have a child, that child has a slightly higher chance of inheriting recessive genetic traits, often negative recessive genetic traits. If a society allows and condones incestual relationships, then over time the recessive trait issue becomes more pronounced, like the classic problems with European nobility.

However, part of the argument against gay marriage is that marriage is all about procreation and gay people can't procreate! Well, within their marriages, anyway. Part of the argument FOR gay marriage is the acknowledgement that, no, marriage isn't actually all about procreation, but is rather a legal contract between two adults sharing resources. Procreation is an important part of marriage, but you can be married without procreating at all . . . plenty of folks do it, both straight and gay! So that would seem to give the OK to the idea that two close family members can get married, if having kids isn't part of the agenda. Of course, writing a law to allow incestual marriage only if the couple agreed to not having kids probably wouldn't work out all that well.

But there are more reasons than simply procreation to discourage incestual relationships in society. The science isn't completely solid on the subject yet, mostly because incest isn't a popular research topic (for obvious reasons)! But the little science that has been done seems to back up "common sense" that incestual relationships, even fully consensual ones, are often psychologically damaging to those involved. We are wired to psychologically see a difference between our close family members and everybody else when it comes to sexuality and procreation. There are outliers, there have been incidences of adult, consensual, incestual relationships that have seemed perfectly healthy (to the claims of the participants and outside observers), but those seem to be very few and far between. Then there is the documented phenomenon of siblings separated at birth, meet later in life not knowing they are siblings, and being STRONGLY attracted to each other . . . there needs to be more science done on this unpopular topic!

Personally, while I think fully legalizing gay marriages and polygamous marriages is the right thing to do, I feel that legalizing incestual marriage is a bad idea . . . based on science, not on ideology. However, I wouldn't criminalize adult, consensual incestual relationships, I just would not give them the stamp of approval from society with legal marriage.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Polygamous marriages probably won't get legalized in the USA.  They raise too many extremely knotty legal issues.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Polygamous marriages probably won't get legalized in the USA.  They raise too many extremely knotty legal issues.




Not to mention fiscal issues.

And when it comes to gay marriage and people who truck out the "reproduction" claim, I would point to the number of straight couples who now seem to need various forms of intervention, in order to procreate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

And- as is always pointed out as a counter to that claim- the number of marriages that occur between hetero couples for whom procreation is medically improbable or impossible due to medical conditions or age, or is unlikely due to their worldview or personal desires.


----------



## Talmek

Dire Bare said:


> Have you read the entire thread yet? It's long, but (mostly) civil and we've already gone round on this one. Your position seems similar to Bullgrit's.
> 
> My response to being uncomfortable with displays of flamboyance, is, well, this:




While I admit that I have not read the entire thread, I must say that reading your post almost seems like because Bullgrit's stance and mine are similar that I should not bother responding to the thread. Is this how you meant it to come across? As we all know, written communication is notoriously difficult to derive inflection from, so I'm asking for my own understanding.

Secondly - flamboyance is not where I have an issue. I've taught my children that public displays of affection beyond a closed-mouth kiss can be considered low-class and rude/offensive to others. This is for their benefit regarding how they will go along in the rest of their lives until adulthood, where the decisions that they will make will reflect upon them. While I can be tolerant (not attacking, verbally or otherwise) I can absolutely have prejudice against those types of behavior in a public setting. I can also say that this IS applicable regardless of sexual preference. 

Basically - keep those types of things behind closed doors (hetero or homo - makes no difference) and respect the request for tolerance...both ways.


----------



## Dire Bare

Talmek said:


> While I admit that I have not read the entire thread, I must say that reading your post almost seems like because Bullgrit's stance and mine are similar that I should not bother responding to the thread. Is this how you meant it to come across? As we all know, written communication is notoriously difficult to derive inflection from, so I'm asking for my own understanding.




Not at all! I wasn't trying to shut down your response, only pointing out that it's already been addressed in the thread. It would further the conversation more if you responded to what has already been discussed, rather than starting the conversation over again.



> Secondly - flamboyance is not where I have an issue. I've taught my children that public displays of affection beyond a closed-mouth kiss can be considered low-class and rude/offensive to others. This is for their benefit regarding how they will go along in the rest of their lives until adulthood, where the decisions that they will make will reflect upon them. While I can be tolerant (not attacking, verbally or otherwise) I can absolutely have prejudice against those types of behavior in a public setting. I can also say that this IS applicable regardless of sexual preference.
> 
> Basically - keep those types of things behind closed doors (hetero or homo - makes no difference) and respect the request for tolerance...both ways.




Pride parades are rarely about PDAs (Public Displays of Affection), although certainly you'll see it at some of them. Pride parades are all about flamboyance and expressing yourself in a very loud and colorful way that's hard to miss. I believe the mantra is "We're here and we're queer!"

You certainly have a right to your opinion and how to raise your kids, but why should the participants of a pride rally or parade care? In other words, why should my choices on how to express myself be limited by those who are made uncomfortable? Why should I care?


----------



## Talmek

Dire Bare said:


> Not at all! I wasn't trying to shut down your response, only pointing out that it's already been addressed in the thread. It would further the conversation more if you responded to what has already been discussed, rather than starting the conversation over again.
> 
> 
> 
> Pride parades are rarely about PDAs (Public Displays of Affection), although certainly you'll see it at some of them. Pride parades are all about flamboyance and expressing yourself in a very loud and colorful way that's hard to miss. I believe the mantra is "We're here and we're queer!"
> 
> You certainly have a right to your opinion and how to raise your kids, but why should the participants of a pride rally or parade care? In other words, why should my choices on how to express myself be limited by those who are made uncomfortable? Why should I care?




My only response would be to care out of common courtesy/decency and mutual respect. If that's not enough, well then it's a lost cause.


----------



## Umbran

Talmek said:


> My only response would be to care out of common courtesy/decency and mutual respect. If that's not enough, well then it's a lost cause.




It is one event a year, easily avoided if it offends your sensibilities.

Here's the thing about the right to freedom of expression - sometimes, you actually get to exercise it.  If the respect really is mutual, then you should not begrudge them the occasional space and time to exercise their rights.  Allowing such spaces is part of the cost of a free society.  Or, to put it another way - part of the cost is that you do *not* have the right to never be exposed to that which you don't like, or feel is improper.

Mark Twain had a fine quote that applies:

"Temperate temperance is best. Intemperate temperance injures the cause of temperance, while temperate temperance helps it in its fight against intemperate intemperance. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky.
- Notebook, 1896"

Which is to say, if you try too hard to keep things repressed, stuffed in a box, you injure the cause of keeping it in the box.


----------



## Talmek

Umbran said:


> It is one event a year, easily avoided if it offends your sensibilities.




Not...exactly one event a year. Based upon a quick google search (http://www.gaypridecalendar.com if you're interested) I found quite a list of events, some with entire months of the year. To be clear I don't realistically believe that an entire city would be brought to bear for an entire month enduring behaviors that I mentioned previously; but let's be accurate in our statements for the purpose of public behavior (and this argument, it seems).



Umbran said:


> Here's the thing about the right to freedom of expression - sometimes, you actually get to exercise it.  If the respect really is mutual, then you should not begrudge them the occasional space and time to exercise their rights.  Allowing such spaces is part of the cost of a free society.  Or, to put it another way - part of the cost is that you do *not* have the right to never be exposed to that which you don't like, or feel is improper.




You are dead-on in the statement that they deserve the right to peaceful assembly, the time allowed to exercise said right and the right to protection from harm in their exercise; the Westboro Baptist Church has demonstrated their rights numerous times (as abhorrent as they are). This is not to compare the LGBT community to the WBC, simply to use an example of first amendment protections as afforded in the Bill of Rights. However, we are talking about two different topics - constitutional rights vs. a respectful request for decency and mutual respect. 



Umbran said:


> Mark Twain had a fine quote that applies:
> 
> "Temperate temperance is best. Intemperate temperance injures the cause of temperance, while temperate temperance helps it in its fight against intemperate intemperance. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky.
> - Notebook, 1896"
> 
> Which is to say, if you try too hard to keep things repressed, stuffed in a box, you injure the cause of keeping it in the box.




I'm also a fan of Twain, and in sharing this will leave this conversation with this thought:

"All you need is ignorance and arrogance, and your success will be assured."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Talmek said:


> I'm also a fan of Twain, and in sharing this will leave this conversation with this thought:
> 
> "All you need is ignorance and arrogance, and your success will be assured."




_Ruh-roh!_


----------



## Mallus

Talmek said:


> Not...exactly one event a year. Based upon a quick google search (http://www.gaypridecalendar.com if you're interested) I found quite a list of events, some with entire months of the year.



Well, if you charter a bus and drive from one Pride celebration to another across the United States for several months, it will probably look like there's a lot of Pride celebration going on. In the liberal East Coast city I live in, it's one day out of the year. 



> However, we are talking about two different topics - constitutional rights vs. a respectful request for decency and mutual respect.



It's hard to argue with requests for decency and mutual respect - so I'll try not to. But I will say this: public gay pride celebrations come out of a specific historic context. It wasn't too long ago when being gay in the US was _criminalized_. Forgot nationwide marriage rights, a gay couple could be arrested for walking down the street holding hands; for _existing_. Law-enforcement agencies around the country would routinely raid businesses known to have a gay clientele. Making a pass at someone could get you busted on a moral charge. 

Or beaten up, killed, fired from your job, publicly ruined, and/or your family shamed for creating you. Heck, in 1978 in San Francisco, of all places, the first out publicly elected official was _assassinated_. That's well within my lifetime. I was 9.

Imagine living in place where you couldn't hold your romantic partner's hand in public, for fear of everything from loss of income, arrest, to direct physical violence. For your entire life. Imagine all those voices telling you to be ashamed. Now imagine that changing... 

This is a fertile soil that loud, in-your-face, public gay pride celebrations came from. It's fair not to like their excesses. It's fair to question their continued relevance in the 21st century -- and I'm sure a segment of the gay community does just that. But it's more than a little unfair not to acknowledge where certain gay pride celebration traditions come from, and why some members of that community might want to continue to honor them.

For the record, the public celebration you really want to avoid in Philadelphia, if you value both decency and your own sanity, is St. Patrick's Day. They bus drunk young people in from the hinterlands. It's nightmarish.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> For the record, the public celebration you really want to avoid in Philadelphia, if you value both decency and your own sanity, is St. Patrick's Day. They bus drunk young people in from the hinterlands. It's nightmarish.




The Bayou Classic is worse.

It's the same basic idea as the Red River Shootout, but with smaller, less civilized schools than Texas & OU.  Those kids hit New Orleans from the hinterlands at the same time as another mass of travelers- the event is during the Thanksgiving Holliday- and the city is flooded with a mass of revelers like no other.  

I mean, the last time I was caught up in that mess, Popeyes & KFC _ran out of chicken._  Do you know what happens when a bunch of drunk southerners run out of fried chicken?  SHOOTING!


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The Bayou Classic is worse.
> 
> It's the same basic idea as the Red River Shootout, but with smaller, less civilized schools than Texas & OU.  Those kids hit New Orleans from the hinterlands at the same time as another mass of travelers- the event is during the Thanksgiving Holliday- and the city is flooded with a mass of revelers like no other.
> 
> I mean, the last time I was caught up in that mess, Popeyes & KFC _ran out of chicken._  Do you know what happens when a bunch of drunk southerners run out of fried chicken?  SHOOTING!




A situation that would easily be de-escalated by the judicious application of barbecued short ribs.


----------



## Umbran

Talmek said:


> However, we are talking about two different topics - constitutional rights vs. a respectful request for decency and mutual respect.




A whole lot of censorship has occurred in the name of "decency".  People try to ban books from schools on the basis of "decency".  

Requests of the form, "Please *never* do that perfectly legal thing, because I *might* see it," may be phrased respectfully, but are, at their core, not reasonable.  Making unreasonable requests falls somewhat short of respectful, in my book.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> A situation that would easily be de-escalated by the judicious application of barbecued short ribs.




Much harder to find those being prepared in New Orleans than in other southern cities.  Hmmm...


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Much harder to find those being prepared in New Orleans than in other southern cities.  Hmmm...




A little crawdad jambalaya will do in a pinch, as long as there's plenty of hot sauce available.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> A little crawdad jambalaya will do in a pinch, as long as there's plenty of hot sauce available.




That's not really finger food- any substitute for fried chicken during the Bayou Classic would need to be more portable than jambalaya because there's not enough room in the food joints to handle the crowds.  You order, you get your food, and you eat on the streets.


----------



## Alzrius

Ryujin said:


> A situation that would easily be de-escalated by the judicious application of barbecued short ribs.




It's probably best that they don't; barbecuing is racist.


----------



## Ryujin

Alzrius said:


> It's probably best that they don't; barbecuing is racist.




Slow cooked?


----------



## Dire Bare

Alzrius said:


> It's probably best that they don't; barbecuing is racist.




I know you are trying to be humorous (well, I assume) . . . but you do realize that's not what the article actually states, right?


----------



## Alzrius

Dire Bare said:


> I know you are trying to be humorous (well, I assume) . . . but you do realize that's not what the article actually states, right?




Poe's Law claims another victim!


----------



## Dire Bare

Alzrius said:


> Poe's Law claims another victim!




Had to look up "Poe's Law" . . . yep!


----------



## I'm A Banana

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Polygamous marriages probably won't get legalized in the USA.  They raise too many extremely knotty legal issues.




There's also some knotty moral issues. 

Like, sure, you can be pretty confident that the west coast hippie love commune or whatever is all consensual and agreeable, but the origins of the outlaw of the practice in the US are in abuse, coercion, child-brides and other severely problematic practices of the early (and much more cult-y) Mormon church. Of course, one might persuasively argue that forbidding polygamy to prevent abuse like that is kind of a blunt instrument (like prohibition to prevent drunken brawls, it _kind of works_, but there's a lot of fine stuff it also outlaws and a lot of problematic stuff it doesn't outlaw). 

It would seem to me that in the long run the only positions the state can take on marriage that are consistent with the Constitution would include either "we support everything any group of consenting adults wants to call marriage" or "the state isn't in the business of establishing what is or is not marriage," and both of those positions leave the door open for Adam & Steve, and also Bob & Joanne & Stacey & Jackie. 

The independent nuclear family is kind of a weird product of post-industrial economics and Western cultural values, anyway - it's not really sustainable, and its cracks, by now, are pretty evident. 



			
				Telmek said:
			
		

> I've taught my children that public displays of affection beyond a closed-mouth kiss can be considered low-class and rude/offensive to others. This is for their benefit regarding how they will go along in the rest of their lives until adulthood, where the decisions that they will make will reflect upon them.




It strikes me that you're protecting them from a judgement that is certainly not universal. Like, perhaps in your hometown, that is something that is considered low-class or rude/offensive, but if your children find themselves in, I dunno, Saudi Arabia at some point in their lives, then even the display of affection that includes a closed-mouth kiss could be considered low-class or rude/offensive to others, and if they find themselves in the aforementioned hippie love commune, refusing to go further than a closed-mouth kiss could be considered cold and rude/offensive to others. 

Why not teach them something that will be equally to their benefit, but is more generally applicable, like "act like others around you, if you don't want to stand out?"

And in that case, if one of your children finds themselves at a gay pride parade, they can let their freak flag fly, acting like the others around them in a celebration of their sexuality as something that makes them stand out, but maybe if they're at home, they'll defer to your own town's standards of what is acceptable...unless they're trying to stand out, of course.


----------



## painted_klown

I just read every single post in this thread. Interesting topic, to be sure. 

I will state up front that I am a Pentecostal Christian. Making that statement to most people (in person) elicits gasps...No, I am not a "holy roller" or snake handler, or other such thing. I have also been to several different Pentecostal churches in the region (local thing the pastors like to do) and have never seen such things go on. 

Having said that, here is the views on homosexuality that was preached from the pulpit, and that I agree with. As you can guess, I am going to approach this from my personal religious belief. 

The pastor at my church openly invited ALL homosexuals/gays to attend our church. He also encouraged all of us to embrace the gay community as Christians should. No, he did NOT want the gay community to come there so he could "convert" them, nor to preach an anti-gay message to them. It was merely so that they would know that not all Christian organizations hate gays. It was to* let the gay community know that we Christians love them, and we accept them for who they are, and where they are at in life...just like everyone else. 
*
What saddens me (as a Christian) is that many people seem to feel that Westboro represents Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe in God, and I do NOT believe that God hates gay people. God does not hate anybody, He loves ALL people the same. I also do not believe that being gay means you're going to hell. That is not for me to decide, nor is it my judgement call. 

I do believe in the (oft quoted ITT) sentiment of "Love the sinner, hate the sin", but that statement isn't necessarily talking about gay people, or ANY particular person/group, for that matter. It simply means that we should love one another, and embrace them for who they are. That person could be a murderer, thief, gay, straight, junkie, compulsive gambler, look different from the norm (I am fat, have a mohawk haircut, and ride a motorcycle for example), etc. Also note that I am NOT calling anyone ITT a "sinner" or any other name. 

The point is, that as Christians, we strive to be more like Jesus Christ. Jesus did not teach hate, nor did He publicly chastise people. In fact, He was "controversial" for associating with prostitutes!!! I don't recall any time in the Bible that Jesus scolded the people He came across (except for those claiming to be Christians and were preaching a false doctrine, being hypocrites, etc). Instead, He embraced and loved them. I feel as Christians, "we" could do a better job of this (as a community). 
*
I will state to all who read this: weather you're gay, straight, transgender, bi-sexual, lesbian, unsure, curious, etc. that "God loves you for who you are, and so do I". *

I am aware that publicly admitting you're a Christian will sometimes get you labeled has a "hate monger" or "bigot" or "racist" or whatever, but please know that these too are negative stereotypes, ones that get placed on Christians, and ones that simply are not true.

For the non-Christians ITT, I know that you do not believe in God, and that is your decision, but please do not think that because I do believe in God, that it makes me "hate" a particular group of people simply for being.


----------



## I'm A Banana

painted_klown said:


> It was to* let the gay community know that we Christians love them, and we accept them for who they are, and where they are at in life...just like everyone else.
> *
> What saddens me (as a Christian) is that many people seem to feel that Westboro represents Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe in God, and I do NOT believe that God hates gay people. God does not hate anybody, He loves ALL people the same. I also do not believe that being gay means you're going to hell. That is not for me to decide, nor is it my judgement call.




It's a good message.

I'm a big fan of Acts 10:28 - "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

For the other big monotheisms, Judaism and Islam, it can be more difficult to get a good holy-book-quote to reinforce that idea of acceptance. It's actually kind of interesting to see the divergence here - many corners of Islam are at *least* as anti-gay as some of the more hard-line Christian movements (and have been more successful in terms of actual legal laws and punishments for it in many countries), but Judaism has a more mixed pattern of prohibition in practice (with many strains being quite accepting, others not so much). Both come from a place where their traditional authorities pretty clearly condemn it, and sometimes quite harshly (the death penalty is thrown around a lot). So it's curious to see a continuum of acceptance - fairly strong in Judaism despite the clear prohibition, spotty but clear in Christianity of most stripes despite some pretty clear commandments to accept, to a little weak in Islam with more folks there following in line with the clear prohibition. I bet there's some interesting sociological/political things you could tease out of those distinctions. 



> For the non-Christians ITT, I know that you do not believe in God, and that is your decision, but please do not think that because I do believe in God, that it makes me "hate" a particular group of people simply for being.




I think there's some...._very vocal Christians_ who get a lot of screen time and who would very much like everyone to imagine that because you believe in god, you can't accept homosexual love. But perhaps part of the reason they get a lot of screen time is because they're vocal and weird.


----------



## Neonchameleon

painted_klown said:


> I just read every single post in this thread. Interesting topic, to be sure.
> 
> I will state up front that I am a Pentecostal Christian. Making that statement to most people (in person) elicits gasps...No, I am not a "holy roller" or snake handler, or other such thing. I have also been to several different Pentecostal churches in the region (local thing the pastors like to do) and have never seen such things go on.
> 
> Having said that, here is the views on homosexuality that was preached from the pulpit, and that I agree with. As you can guess, I am going to approach this from my personal religious belief.
> 
> The pastor at my church openly invited ALL homosexuals/gays to attend our church. He also encouraged all of us to embrace the gay community as Christians should. No, he did NOT want the gay community to come there so he could "convert" them, nor to preach an anti-gay message to them. It was merely so that they would know that not all Christian organizations hate gays. It was to* let the gay community know that we Christians love them, and we accept them for who they are, and where they are at in life...just like everyone else.
> *
> What saddens me (as a Christian) is that many people seem to feel that Westboro represents Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth.




Sorry, but no. Just about everyone knows that the Westboro Baptist Church are a creepy cult who shouldn't be trusted with pens, signs, flags, or sharp implements. And no one thinks they represent Christians. Indeed the only time I ever see people claim anything about the Westboro Baptist Church representing Christians it's the claim that non-Christians think that the Westboro Baptist Church are other than a bunch right on the fringe. This, in short, is a deflection used by Christians so they don't have to check whether they need to get their own house in order.

So who do people think _does_ represent Christians? In short the people who represent Christians.

The biggest group of Christians in the world are the Roman Catholic Church - who claim that homosexuality is an inclination which is objectively disordered. Any time there is a fight for marriage equality (and most other gay rights) the Roman Catholic Church is right there opposing it. There are many good things that can be said about Francis 1 - a lack of homophobia is not on the list.

The largest Christian denomination in the UK is the Church of England. Which was leading the fight against gay rights in the House of Lords (9/14 bishops voted for a wrecking amendment to prevent gay marriage, the rest abstained). The Church of England a while back decided that being a celibate gay man was enough to rule someone out for becoming a Bishop - and bans blessing same sex partnerships (as well as actual same sex marriages). The leader of the Church of England (and the Anglican Communion as a whole, which includes the Episcopalians) is Archbishop Justin Welby. Despite knowing that his view on gay marriage is akin to racism, he was one of those actively opposing equal rights.

The largest Christian denomination in the US other than the Roman Catholic Church is the Southern Baptist Convention. Actively homophobic, actively opposed to Gay Marriage, they institutionally condemn Churches where the pastor's kid is gay and the pastor doesn't throw them out. They've only _very_ recently (i.e. within the past year) changed their official position on the quack brainwashing that is reparative therapy. To say they are institutionally homophobic is putting it mildly.

So that's the world's largest denomination, the largest denomination in the UK, and the largest non-Catholic denomination in the US all preaching homophobia and actively opposing equal rights. And you're a Pentecostal? The largest Pentecostal denomination is the Assemblies of God, and their position is that it's OK to be gay as long as you never sleep with anyone you love. Hardly a loving position. They, of course, also oppose equal rights.

Westboro Baptist Church has _almost nothing_ to do with the reason most people think the people who represent Christianity are homophobes. The largest Christian churches are all homophobic and leading the fights against equal rights. Yes, some of the smaller ones (especially the Quakers) are actively fighting for equal rights. But when it comes to representing Christianity, this is very much a minority position.

Christianity isn't being judged based on Westboro turning up and trying to fly Irish flags upside down. People take the official position of Christianity as being that of the people Christians empower to speak for them on matters of Christianity. And that, for just about every major denomination, is homophobic.



> I am aware that publicly admitting you're a Christian will sometimes get you labeled has a "hate monger" or "bigot" or "racist" or whatever, but please know that these too are negative stereotypes, ones that get placed on Christians, and ones that simply are not true.
> 
> For the non-Christians ITT, I know that you do not believe in God, and that is your decision, but please do not think that because I do believe in God, that it makes me "hate" a particular group of people simply for being.




I don't think that you personally hate people simply for being. On the other hand I do think that you have been trying to use Westboro to deflect criticism that should go to just about every major group of Christians and that this demonstrates you are blinkered.


----------



## Ryujin

Given the number of lawyers who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church I would tend to say that their prime tenets more involve litigation, than ascension


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ryujin said:


> Given the number of lawyers who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church I would tend to say that their prime tenets more involve litigation, than ascension




No kidding. They are more of a mix of a weird dysfunctonal family with a shared hobby and legal trolls who try to provoke people into violence so they can sue them than even a cult. (Almost everyone in Westboro Baptist is related to the late Fred Phelps, although there is a second small family in there and one unrelated person).


----------



## Umbran

Neonchameleon said:


> The leader of the Church of England (and the Anglican Communion as a whole, which includes the Episcopalians) is Archbishop Justin Welby. Despite knowing that his view on gay marriage is akin to racism, he was one of those actively opposing equal rights.




It is perhaps important and interesting to note, though, that the US branch of the Episcopalians voted to *allow* gay marriages days after the recent Supreme Court ruling.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Umbran said:


> It is perhaps important and interesting to note, though, that the US branch of the Episcopalians voted to *allow* gay marriages days after the recent Supreme Court ruling.




I'm not sure whether it is or not; it depends on who is talking to whom. For individual Episcopalians and people dealing directly with them it is important - but for people dealing with Christians as a whole it comes under the heading of #NotAllChristians.

This is doubly true when (a) the point is that the Episcopalian Church is *no worse* than the majority of the country, only voting to allow what they could after it was already legal, (b) are part of the Anglican Communion as a whole and thus under the umbrella of the Anglican Communion.

Indeed I could go so far as to say the ECUSA is the exception that proves the rule. When Christians are being held up as good for simply matching up to mainstream society, something has gone deeply wrong with Christian ethics and identity.


----------



## Umbran

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm not sure whether it is or not; it depends on who is talking to whom. For individual Episcopalians and people dealing directly with them it is important - but for people dealing with Christians as a whole it comes under the heading of #NotAllChristians.




Just to start with - note that I am not Episcopalian.

That out of the way - Oh, gods, please no hashtags!  And, I think this constitutes an abuse of the concept.

"Not all men," is a problem as a knee-jerk response to the report of a problem, as it constitutes a deflection from discussion the problem to mollifying the feelings of one person who feels they are being unjustly targeted, shifting focus from the problem to the rights of the accused.  That's not happening here.  

On the flip side, it is important that those who are the victims of discrimination do not engage in negative stereotyping, because then the moral high ground is lost.  The response to, "Not all men!" isn't, "Yes, all men!"  But is instead, "Yes all *women*" - a refocusing on the problem, not on insisting on accusing all members of a demographic or group.

Moreover, when considering what to do with the problem, it is *vitally* important to examine where things are improving - if you want to work to getting Christianity to change, the examples of where it is changing are your natural first places to start analyzing the phenomenon of change.  This is why I said it was interesting.  Why did the US Episcopalians move when the rest did not?  What makes them different?  If we want change, we ought to find out.



> This is doubly true when (a) the point is that the Episcopalian Church is *no worse* than the majority of the country, only voting to allow what they could after it was already legal,




That's not the whole story - in 2012, they authorized a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited.  So, it isn't exactly that they *only* moved when it was made legal.  The Canadian branch had its commission meeting to revise their marriage canon to include same-sex marriage back in April 2014.  And local Episcopalian Bishops have been supporting the move for some time - the Bishop of Chicago was a major proponent for his state to recognize same-sex marriage, for example.

Thus, we can see the organization has been moving (yes, more slowly than many want, but moving) in this direction for years.  It looks rather much like the change in law was really just what allowed them to more quickly get where they were going anyway.  

It is very common to characterize change in terms of "it isn't what I think there should be, so there is *nothing*", but that's not accurate.  If we want to encourage motion, we need to know why some move, and others do not.



> Indeed I could go so far as to say the ECUSA is the exception that proves the rule.




Yes, it does.  In the original sense.  You know how "Begging the question" doesn't originally mean, "Begs the question be asked".  It means, "Assumes the answer of the question."

Well, "exception that proves the rule," doesn't originally mean, "exception that shows the rule to generally be true, by only being an exception."  It means, "exception that *tests* the rule."

So, your rule is "Christian religions are homophobic."  Fine.  The US Episcopalians test that rule - they have been slowly moving towards inclusivity since the 1970s, even.  When their precursors (Catholics and Anglicans) don't accept it, and other major organizations in the country don't accept it, why do they?  They've been a bit ahead on other issues as well - ordination of female priests and bishops, for example.

One possibility is that, in contrast to the fairly strict "tradition and Papal authority" of the Catholic church, or the primacy of scripture of American Evangelical traditions, the US Episcopalians claim a triad of sources of authority - scripture, tradition, _and reason_.


----------



## painted_klown

Neonchameleon said:


> this demonstrates you are blinkered.



 I am not sure what you are meaning by that, but I am aware that it's not positive. I did not call anyone names, and I would appreciate the same respect in turn. 



Neonchameleon said:


> When Christians are being held up as good for simply matching up to mainstream society, something has gone deeply wrong with Christian ethics and identity.



You are bashing on an entire religion, simply because you do not follow it. I did not come in this thread to bash on anyone, I came in with a message of love. 

Trying to demean my religion is NOT helping your argument at all. It causes me to dismiss any points you are attempting to make as you are name calling and bashing...isn't that EXACTLY why you do not like Westboro? Are those tactics ok for you and not for them? 

Not defending Westboro, just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Umbran

painted_klown said:


> I am not sure what you are meaning by that, but I am aware that it's not positive.




"Blinkered," is a term for a horse that is wearing blinders - shields by their eyes to narrow their field of view so they are not startled by things around them.  He's saying that you don't see the full picture, essentially.  



> You are bashing on an entire religion, simply because you do not follow it.




Well, we don't know *why* he's saying things - we are not mind readers.  But I feel a need to point out that "you don't follow" is not a motivation.  Following sometimes provides people with motivations, but failing to follow does not.  "If you are not with us, you are against us," is not generally true.    




> Not defending Westboro, just pointing out the obvious.




He's perhaps not as diplomatic as he might be, but is it bashing to point out their publicly acknowledged positions on the matter?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Umbran said:


> Just to start with - note that I am not Episcopalian.
> 
> That out of the way - Oh, gods, please no hashtags!  And, I think this constitutes an abuse of the concept.
> 
> "Not all men," is a problem as a knee-jerk response to the report of a problem, as it constitutes a deflection from discussion the problem to mollifying the feelings of one person who feels they are being unjustly targeted, shifting focus from the problem to the rights of the accused.  That's not happening here.




Yes it is. There are two textbook deflection replies to any comments about Christianity and homophobia. The first is "Not all Christians are Westboro Baptist Church" and the second, when it's pointed out just how much of mainstream Christianity preaches homophobia is "Stop bashing my religion".

It is #NotAllChristians. First using Westboro as the not all example and then the two-step into the feelings of Christians when it's pointed out how pervasive it is within mainstream contemporary Christianity. A pattern I've seen time and time again.

Exactly the way you are talking about.



> Moreover, when considering what to do with the problem, it is *vitally* important to examine where things are improving - if you want to work to getting Christianity to change, the examples of where it is changing are your natural first places to start analyzing the phenomenon of change.  This is why I said it was interesting.  Why did the US Episcopalians move when the rest did not?  What makes them different?  If we want change, we ought to find out.




Fully focussing on that problem would take a whole book - I know because I'm literally procrastinating writing it while posting on ENWorld.

Why did the US Episcopalians move? What makes them different? Two things.

The first is listening to the membership and empowering the members to speak to themselves. One reason the (UK) Quakers are almost always among the fastest to move to the right side of any social issue is that the Quakers have their own holy book, Quaker Faith and Practice, that's both updated every ten years and updated with hopefully full discussion with the membership and basically boils down to a collection of things they've found useful and learned over the centuries. And all Quakers are theoretically equal at contributing.

The second reason is giving up on giving in to Conservative blackmail. Most liberal churches (the ECUSA among them) place a high value on Christian unity or at least denominational unity and this allows the Conservatives to threaten to leave and break communion if they actually change things for the better. In the case of the ECUSA the enforcers included Rowan Williams (yes, Anglicans, he may have looked fuzzy and talked like a liberal - but he always sided with those saying "Not Yet", no matter the theology of the situation). In 2009, the Conservatives finally did what they had been threatening to do for a long time. They formed the Anglican Church in North America. And threats like that have power only until they are used. (The Church in Nigeria for that matter had already broken communion with the ECUSA in 2003).

But. This leaves the elephant in the room.

If Christianity is morally good _why are almost all branches of Christianity behind rather than ahead of the enviroments they come from?_

And the answer to that among English-speaking Evangelical Christianity can IMO be traced back to the First Great Awakening and the slave-owner and successful lobbyist for the expansion of slavery George Whitefield being the most influential preacher of the Great Awakening, and his preaching a form of Christianity that did its best to counter the abolitionists. But going through how this worked is what takes much of the book.



> The Canadian branch had its commission meeting to revise their marriage canon to include same-sex marriage back in April 2014.




A mere nine years after it became legal in Canada... And of course if the ECUSA had been trying to be progressive, while worried about legality, they could have endorsed gay marriage in any state it was legal long before it was legal in the whole USA.



> Yes, it does.  In the original sense.  You know how "Begging the question" doesn't originally mean, "Begs the question be asked".  It means, "Assumes the answer of the question."
> 
> Well, "exception that proves the rule," doesn't originally mean, "exception that shows the rule to generally be true, by only being an exception."  It means, "exception that *tests* the rule."




I do know that _and that is how I used it._

Major mainstream denominations of Christianity are homophobic. Test case: the ECUSA. Is it a major denomination? Nope (although it seems to be heading that way). It's part of the Anglican Communion which _is_ homophobic so it's not a denomination. Also it is backward even when compared to the legal system. The ECUSA is only a minimal part of the problem but it is still part of the problem.



> So, your rule is "Christian religions are homophobic."  Fine.




That is you putting words into my mouth. Indeed I explicitly mentioned the Quakers to demonstrate that _not_ all forms of Christianity are homophobic.



> The US Episcopalians test that rule - they have been slowly moving towards inclusivity since the 1970s, even.




Indeed. _And they are doing so more slowly than the society they are a part of._

As for only legalising gay marriage _after_ the law did, you are aware that the religious institution of marriage and the legal one are not the same? I went to an Anglican wedding the weekend before last that was not a legal one (and will need formalising at the registry office when his divorce paperwork clears). The Quakers have been holding religious marriages for gay couples in the UK since 1994.



> When their precursors (Catholics and Anglicans) don't accept it, and other major organizations in the country don't accept it, why do they?  They've been a bit ahead on other issues as well - ordination of female priests and bishops, for example.




The ECUSA ahead on ordination of female priests and bishops? Not really. To pick one example, the United Methodist Church has been ordaining priests since it was formed in 1968. For that matter if you want to see progressive on womens' ordination, John Wesley himself authorised female preachers starting in 1761 and not all the Methodists stopped after his death.

The first women ordained in the ECUSA were illicitly ordained in 1974 - deep into second wave feminism in the USA. The first actually legally ordained were in 1976.

And this is the point. The ECUSA only looks progressive when you put it against the backdrop of the Church of England (or the Roman Catholic Church). When you put it against a backdrop of American society as a whole it looks pretty close to the centre, held slightly back by its bedfellows within the CofE. A discussion within the ranks that mirrors the one within society, only endorsing things when they become mainstream.



> One possibility is that, in contrast to the fairly strict "tradition and Papal authority" of the Catholic church, or the primacy of scripture of American Evangelical traditions, the US Episcopalians claim a triad of sources of authority - scripture, tradition, _and reason_.




Hooker's Tripod I'm afraid works within the CofE as well as the ECUSA. So it can't be that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> If Christianity is morally good why are almost all branches of Christianity behind rather than ahead of the enviroments they come from?




..."on this issue" are the words missing from this sentence, and they matter.

If you look at any major faith tradition or philosophy, you'll probably find some points of incongruity between them and the cultures in which they are most prevalent.

Why?

Because humans.

Codified rules only change as fast as the people in charge of changing them.  Societies are more fluid.  Rules set a baseline against which we compare actual and normative behavior.  Then we either conform to the rules, or change the rules to conform to us.

However, people also _interpret_ rules differently because rules are just words, and- as was recognized in "Stairway to Heaven"- sometimes words have two meanings.  Just looking at Christianity, add in the inevitable introduction of error due to translation from Greek, Aramaic, and Latin into English and other languages, coupled with removal of the context of an agrarian society to a modern post-industrial world 2000 years down the road?

Well, its hard to keep on the moral path.

Ghandi famously noted he loved out Christ, but didn't so much appreciate Chtistians...and that's why.  Who among us actually lives up to the ideal Christ set down?  I think the next one will be the first.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> One possibility is that, in contrast to the fairly strict "tradition and Papal authority" of the Catholic church, or the primacy of scripture of American Evangelical traditions, the US Episcopalians claim a triad of sources of authority - scripture, tradition, _and reason_.




Actually, it is forgotten even by many Catholics, but even St. Augustine taught that faith cannot be used as a reason to deny what can be proven by logic and reason.  To use the language used upthread, logic and reason test our faith.  If faith is leading you to reject the evidence of science and reason, you need to reexamine your faith, because both come from the same divine source, and cannot be in conflict with each other.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/ar...nfessions-and-the-harmony-of-faith-and-reason


----------



## Neonchameleon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ..."on this issue" are the words missing from this sentence, and they matter.




True. But only if you add "and on so many others from slavery to civil rights to contraception." (Just to pick some amazingly obvious ones). And even on economics the Christian record is incredibly mixed despite some pretty blatant comments by Jesus. (I used to think "The poor shall always be with you was not meant to be a mission statement" was dark satire until I read someone using that passage of the Bible to oppose social safety nets - second only to the hopefully apocryphal "Now let us thank God we are like the tax collector").



> However, people also _interpret_ rules differently because rules are just words, and- as was recognized in "Stairway to Heaven"- sometimes words have two meanings.  Just looking at Christianity, add in the inevitable introduction of error due to translation from Greek, Aramaic, and Latin into English and other languages, coupled with removal of the context of an agrarian society to a modern post-industrial world 2000 years down the road?




And finally add in the ideological underpinnings and dubious translations of one of the most popular versions of the Bible...


----------



## Umbran

Neonchameleon said:


> It is #NotAllChristians. First using Westboro as the not all example and then the two-step into the feelings of Christians when it's pointed out how pervasive it is within mainstream contemporary Christianity. A pattern I've seen time and time again.




And humans are never, ever deceived by what the perceive to be a pattern?  Since I fit the pattern, you have decided my motivation.  Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this case.

I will make this request only once - please stop telling me why I say things.  Don't make Charisma your dump stat.



> Why did the US Episcopalians move? What makes them different? Two things.
> 
> The first is listening to the membership and empowering the members to speak to themselves.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> The second reason is giving up on giving in to Conservative blackmail.




That tells us *how* they came to change, but doesn't tell us *why* they changed.  Why is the ECUSA "liberal", while the CoE is more "conservative"?  I'm asking about root cause, here.



> If Christianity is morally good _why are almost all branches of Christianity behind rather than ahead of the enviroments they come from?_




Oh, well, that's simple.  I reject the premise.  Christianity isn't morally good. 

I make a distinction here - in this context "Christianity" is a collection of religious organizations.  Organizations are tools - they have no innate moral character, and are neither evil nor good in and of themselves.  Good only comes from how people use the tool.  History has shown us over and over that the organizations have been used in morally questionable ways, and/or for morally questionable ends, because the people who used them were not exemplary themselves.

Moreover, large organizations are powerful, but typically slow and clumsy tools,  They have inertia, especially when their definition is partly based on following tradition.  We would expect them to generally lag behind the environments they come from.  It may well be that the organization *must* lag behind the environment - organizations don't lead.  Individuals lead.  We may be seeing this with the Catholic Church now, with Pope Francis.  It is very clearly he who is leading, not the church as a whole.  



> Hooker's Tripod I'm afraid works within the CofE as well as the ECUSA. So it can't be that.




As Danny has noted - many Catholics do not know their Augustine.  Perhaps in the CofE, it is given lip service more than actual practice?  Then, why?  What's the difference between the organizations?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

More importantly, most people in organizations do what they're told. In the context of religion, this means that even if someone reads the holy texts of one's faith, they're more likely to follow the textual interpretations taught by religious educators or what they hear from the preachers in the pulpit rather than their own judgement.

There is good reason for this- those people tend to have more formal education in the text than Joe Believer, but that still means there are additional layers of human thought between the divine and the believer.

Add to that the known psychosocial dynamics of group pressure.  If not only your learned cleric but also the vast majority of the faithful say that to be a member of a given faith means you must believe in ________ doctrine...

That is difficult psychological territory to then not follow the doctrine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As expected, after the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, the fight continues.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/..._houston_lgbt_rights_ordinance_in_danger.html

To sum up: Houston tried to pass a LBGT protection ordinance covering things like employment, city contracts, etc.  Opponents started a petition to put it to a referendum.  They got the requisite signatures, but an investigation revealed that enough of the signatures were bogus/forgeries that the petition didn't satisfy the legal requirements to satisfy being out on a ballot.

Then the TxSupCt decided that the legislation still needed to be put to a referendum, _despite not having cleared the legal hurdle of having X number of legal signatures._

That's right, the TxSupCt ignored an explicit, neutral and clear law in order to let a challenge to this law go forward.

Why did they do so?

Because judges are elected here in Texas.  Those justices want to keep their jobs.  Even if they were more moderate or centrist or liberal types, the fact that they'll have to go before the public at some point and defend themselves to retain their seats politicizes their decision making process beyond mere membership in one party or another.

Crap like this is why the country's Founding Fathers opted for an UNELECTED judiciary.  It helps maintain their objectivity...or at least  minimizes the polarizing effects of an electioneering process on legal reasoning.

Remember that some time when some- like several of the current GOP presidential hopefuls- talk about making the SCOTUS and other federal judges into elected officials...


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As expected, after the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, the fight continues.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/..._houston_lgbt_rights_ordinance_in_danger.html
> 
> To sum up: Houston tried to pass a LBGT protection ordinance covering things like employment, city contracts, etc.  Opponents started a petition to put it to a referendum.  They got the requisite signatures, but an investigation revealed that enough of the signatures were bogus/forgeries that the petition didn't satisfy the legal requirements to satisfy being out on a ballot.
> 
> Then the TxSupCt decided that the legislation still needed to be put to a referendum, _despite not having cleared the legal hurdle of having X number of legal signatures._
> 
> That's right, the TxSupCt ignored an explicit, neutral and clear law in order to let a challenge to this law go forward.
> 
> Why did they do so?
> 
> Because judges are elected here in Texas.  Those justices want to keep their jobs.  Even if they were more moderate or centrist or liberal types, the fact that they'll have to go before the public at some point and defend themselves to retain their seats politicizes their decision making process beyond mere membership in one party or another.
> 
> Crap like this is why the country's Founding Fathers opted for an UNELECTED judiciary.  It helps maintain their objectivity...or at least  minimizes the polarizing effects of an electioneering process on legal reasoning.
> 
> Remember that some time when some- like several of the current GOP presidential hopefuls- talk about making the SCOTUS and other federal judges into elected officials...




Makes me glad that all of our judges are appointed. In a recent debate in which my opponent made a comment about how those "damned liberal judges" had struck down a law passed by the Conservative government, I had to point out that the majority of those judges were, in fact, Conservative appointees.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Umbran said:


> And humans are never, ever deceived by what the perceive to be a pattern?  Since I fit the pattern, you have decided my motivation.  Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this case.




Its not all about you. Have you been doing the Westboro Two Step that I explicitly pointed out as illustrative of #NotAllChristians? No. Has someone else on this thread illustrated it perfectly? Yes. #NotAllChristians is frequently appropriate in conversations like this thread and is being demonstrated in this thread. You were getting the full expansion because you were saying that the term itself was invalid. No, you personally haven't demonstrated #NotAllChristians. You haven't brought up the Westboro Baptist Church to deflect attention and then claimed that pointing out the actual behaviour of actual Christian leaders of all the largest groups amounted to bashing.



> I will make this request only once - please stop telling me why I say things.  Don't make Charisma your dump stat.




And I will make the following request only once. Please actually respond to what I am saying rather than what you imagine me to be saying and making strawmen by doing so. Don't make Wisdom your dump stat.

In recent days you've twice attempted to correct me through pedantry (once on this thread by your comments about the exception proving the rule and once about the meaning of exponential) - and in both cases I have demonstrated I meant exactly what I said and it was factually accurate to do so. Pedantry in the first place is generally a failed Cha check - and incorrect pedantry a failed Int check. A third time in about the past week you seem to have had a problem with the idea I might be saying what I meant and my deliberate illustrations that I didn't mean more meant I _must_ be insinuating malice precisely because I said I wasn't.



> That tells us *how* they came to change, but doesn't tell us *why* they changed.  Why is the ECUSA "liberal", while the CoE is more "conservative"?  I'm asking about root cause, here.




And I have been pointing out for several posts now that the premise of this is invalid. The ECUSA is _not_ socially liberal when you put it against the backdrop of mainstream American society. The ECUSA is not leading so much as it is taking its moral cues from the surrounding society. Indeed it is socially _slightly_ conservative by the standards of mainstream society.

Now, the correct question to ask is "Why is the ECUSA taking its cues from mainstream American society while the CofE is taking its cues from itself?"

And the answer to that is that the ECUSA is not a major denomination. (Which is where my correction to your illustration comes in). The ECUSA claims that it had 1.55 million communicant members in 2013 - or approximately 0.5% of the population of the USA (and this includes lapsed members who were confirmed as a teenager but haven't darkened church doors in years). It's certainly not a major denomination by numbers. Further it doesn't have a Salt Lake City style heartland or many Megachurches (Wikipedia claims it has one) that make it a major denomination in a specific region. This means that almost all American Episcopalians know many more non-Episcopalians than they do Episcopalians so most of them take their cues from the society they know.

Or to put it simply, by being such a small denomination (the numbers aren't directly comparable, but in North America, the Unitarians may be bigger and given relative reporting dates so might the Jehovas' Witnesses) the Episcopalians don't have a critical mass in America. Which means that in the absence of a specific doctrinal/societal push they float towards the centre of America rather than feed back into themselves.

Of course the waters are muddied by the historic disproportionate influence of the Episcopalian Church and the fact that it's frequently used as a bridge by Christians who reject Christian Shibboleths.



> Oh, well, that's simple.  I reject the premise.  Christianity isn't morally good.




Fair enough. I'm not sure even if you are a Christian - but if you are, what is the point of Christianity if it doesn't lead to goodness?



> Moreover, large organizations are powerful, but typically slow and clumsy tools,  They have inertia, especially when their definition is partly based on following tradition.  We would expect them to generally lag behind the environments they come from.  It may well be that the organization *must* lag behind the environment - organizations don't lead.




On the other hand organisations can encourage certain practices. It surprises a lot of people to discover that the late Archbishop Ramsay (Archbishop of Canterbury 1961 - 1974) was a major advocate for the decriminalisation of homosexuality and used his platform to push this. How different from today. (IMO Archbishop Runcie's approach of "nailing his colours firmly to the fence" was preferable to any of his three successors).

Organisations don't lead, but the people in charge of them do. Or they can behave like anchors.



> We may be seeing this with the Catholic Church now, with Pope Francis.  It is very clearly he who is leading, not the church as a whole.




Pope Francis is very clearly at odds _with the Curia_. That's a different story - I'm not sure whether he's leading or playing catchup with respect to the Catholic in the pew to stop the haemoherrage in Europe and America. He's also not actually changing any doctrine; what he represents is more of a change of emphasis from "We should condemn these people ... and treat the poor well when we have time" to "We should treat the poor well and condemn these people." It's a welcome change of emphasis, granted. But the changes in doctrine are minimal.



> As Danny has noted - many Catholics do not know their Augustine.  Perhaps in the CofE, it is given lip service more than actual practice?  Then, why?  What's the difference between the organizations?




Most Christians don't know much theology and are far more likely to folow those of people teaching than their own guesses. But a huge difference is that in America the Episcopalian Church claims 2 million baptised members. In Britain the Church of England claims 26 million baptised members, and has a central organisation and free seats in the House of Lords. Which, especially allowing for local variation, allows many more feedback loops. As I said, major denomination. In England the CofE is one.

(Before you mention various other groups, major denomination is far from the only toggle here. It's just one of the few that gets turned on by default).


----------



## MechaPilot

Neonchameleon said:


> So who do people think _does_ represent Christians? In short the people who represent Christians.




If you're going to talk about people who represent Christians though, don't forget Pope Francis who said (I'm paraphrasing because I don't feel like looking up the quote) "If a man is gay and has goodwill and seeks the Lord, who am I to judge?"


----------



## Neonchameleon

MechaPilot said:


> If you're going to talk about people who represent Christians though, don't forget Pope Francis who said (I'm paraphrasing because I don't feel like looking up the quote) "If a man is gay and has goodwill and seeks the Lord, who am I to judge?"




I haven't forgotten Pope Francis who has on different occasions described gay marriage and the work of the devil and a destructive attack on God's plan and that same-sex marriage threatens the family and disfigures God's plan for creation. His line is so far as I can tell a polite version of the textbook "It's OK to be gay as long as you remain closeted and never actually act on anything" with good PR behind him. And even that approach gets overruled.

The difference between the doctrines of Francis I and Benedict XVI are surprisingly minor - and both entirely consistent with the catechism as it exists. It's simply that the existing doctrines emphasised by Francis I are some of the better ones rather than some of the worse.


----------



## MechaPilot

Neonchameleon said:


> I haven't forgotten Pope Francis who has on different occasions described gay marriage and the work of the devil and a destructive attack on God's plan and that same-sex marriage threatens the family and disfigures God's plan for creation. His line is so far as I can tell a polite version of the textbook "It's OK to be gay as long as you remain closeted and never actually act on anything" with good PR behind him. And even that approach gets overruled.
> 
> The difference between the doctrines of Francis I and Benedict XVI are surprisingly minor - and both entirely consistent with the catechism as it exists. It's simply that the existing doctrines emphasised by Francis I are some of the better ones rather than some of the worse.




If your point is that an organization doesn't immediately fall in line behind its leader when the leader challenges the status quo, I think that point is rather obvious.

Equally obvious is that change doesn't come easily to large organizations with weighty traditions behind them, and that the pope (who is just a man and not actually infallible) can falter in doing what is right just as anyone else can.

I heard a homily a couple of months ago from a priest who talked about going to a meeting of local social (LGBT and minority activists) and religious leaders (the priest, a rabbi, and an imam).  He recounted that the meeting allowed them to get to know each other fairly well and discuss important issues affecting the various members of that region.  Afterward, the LGBT activist told the priest that he had felt more welcomed by the religious leaders at that meeting than he did at his own church.  The priest related that he was shocked by this.  His frame of reference was so different that he had never considered how unwelcoming the Catholic church could be to some people.  I mention this not as an absolution for all Catholics, but to relate that there are likely many everyday religious persons who don't realize how unwelcome others feel by their respective religious institutions, and that many members of religious institutions may not truly understand the people who are put down by archaic items of faith.


----------



## Neonchameleon

MechaPilot said:


> If your point is that an organization doesn't immediately fall in line behind its leader when the leader challenges the status quo, I think that point is rather obvious.




No. My point is that Francis 1 isn't anything like the progressive he is frequently portrayed as being. His differences from Benedict XVI are which parts of the doctrine to emphasise rather than attempts to change doctrine.


----------



## MechaPilot

Neonchameleon said:


> No. My point is that Francis 1 isn't anything like the progressive he is frequently portrayed as being. His differences from Benedict XVI are which parts of the doctrine to emphasise rather than attempts to change doctrine.




Emphasis can be the first step on the road to change.


----------



## Neonchameleon

MechaPilot said:


> Emphasis can be the first step on the road to change.




Oh, indeed. As I've also said frequently, the shift in emphasis is important. It's just significantly oversold, and the "It's OK to be gay as long as you sit down, shut up, stay in the closet, and don't talk about it" that Francis 1 seems to advocate would appear to be moving the Roman Catholic Church approximately from the 1940s to the 1960s. And still in line with my comments about the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## MechaPilot

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, indeed. As I've also said frequently, the shift in emphasis is important. It's just significantly oversold, and the "It's OK to be gay as long as you sit down, shut up, stay in the closet, and don't talk about it" that Francis 1 seems to advocate would appear to be moving the Roman Catholic Church approximately from the 1940s to the 1960s. And still in line with my comments about the Roman Catholic Church.




It's a little bit more than that.

The pope's line about who is he to judge someone who is gay, has goodwill, and seeks the Lord, leaves out any reference to having to stay celibate or closeted.  The pope is basically overturning the archaic article of faith that gays are going to hell for being gay.  The church certainly won't adopt that philosophy immediately, and there's no guarantee they ever will, but that statement by the head of the Catholic church is very significant.

It also calls back to a church philosophy that people aren't automatically going to hell because they were born and died before Christ was born, that as long as they lived a good and godly life they will not be condemned simply because they were born in the year 1000 B.C.E.  This philosophy is itself also very significant because it means you don't have to follow all the little BS man-made rules of a man-made organization to be seen as righteous by God.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> It's a little bit more than that.
> 
> The pope's line about who is he to judge someone who is gay, has goodwill, and seeks the Lord, leaves out any reference to having to stay celibate or closeted.  The pope is basically overturning the archaic article of faith that gays are going to hell for being gay.  The church certainly won't adopt that philosophy immediately, and there's no guarantee they ever will, but that statement by the head of the Catholic church is very significant.




While his statement "who am I to judge" was a profound change, Neonchameleon is basically correct: it does not alter the Church's current (as of the past several decades) theological position one bit.   Homosexuality isn't a sin, but the practice of it is still considered to be so.  "Seeking The Lord", thus, almost perforce implies celibacy- confess thy sins, then go forth and sin no more.

What Francis is trying to do, though, is alter the way the clergy preach about homosexuality to the flock and would-be members. Instead of being condemnatory and confrontational from the pulpit- an approach he realizes results in serious injury to both gays and straights alike*- he is trying to get his priests to preach a message of inclusion.  That means that the straights aren't supposed to be out there making life difficult for their gay brethren, and gays are welcome as long as they toe the line.





* cruelty in the name of opposing homosexuality is a grave sin, and is therefore every bit as corrosive to the spiritual well being of the tormentor as it is harmful to the physical and mental well-being of the tormented.  Preaching hatred leads the flock into temptation to commit all kinds of deadly sins.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While his statement "who am I to judge" was a profound change, Neonchameleon is basically correct: it does not alter the Church's current (as of the past several decades) theological position one bit.   Homosexuality isn't a sin, but the practice of it is still considered to be so.  "Seeking The Lord", thus, almost perforce implies celibacy- confess thy sins, then go forth and sin no more.
> 
> What Francis is trying to do, though, is alter the way the clergy preach about homosexuality to the flock and would-be members. Instead of being condemnatory and confrontational from the pulpit- an approach he realizes results in serious injury to both gays and straights alike*- he is trying to get his priests to preach a message of inclusion.  That means that the straights aren't supposed to be out there making life difficult for their gay brethren, and gays are welcome as long as they toe the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * cruelty in the name of opposing homosexuality is a grave sin, and is therefore every bit as corrosive to the spiritual well being of the tormentor as it is harmful to the physical and mental well-being of the tormented.  Preaching hatred leads the flock into temptation to commit all kinds of deadly sins.




All this is very true and exactly what I was saying.

There's also one further real problem that means the Roman Catholic Church can't alter its position much - they are quite possibly in the same corner they've painted themselves into regarding contraception. The position on homosexuality is almost certainly considered a position on faith and morals held universally by the Roman Catholic Church (it is part of the Catechism after all). And although Papal Infallibility is almost a myth (yes, there are a few infallible statements - but very few) Magisterial Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals is a different category entirely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The "dilemma" boils down to this:

1) Science is increasingly coming down on the side of stating homosexuality is essentially hard wired.  

2) St. Augustine teaches that faith and logic & reason come from the same divine source, so that there can be no conflict between them- if there is one, then the position held in faith is erroneous.

2) BUT... the Church condemns behavior, not immutable characteristics.  Thus, while it is not sinful to have homosexual impulses, it IS a sin to act to fulfill them...as with any other impulse deemed sinful.  Because it is condemning the behavior, there really isn't a strong need to rethink things a la Augustine.  It is nearly immaterial to the Church whether homosexuality is an innate characteristic or not.  

IOW, it isn't that they _can't_ change their position, it is that there is no good theological reason driving them to do so.

Contrast that with contraception: the Church is condemning the technology itself, in all forms.  But it is possible that facts could arise that would make the Church reconsider that teaching.  indeed, some might argue that 7B+ (and rising) humans on Earth is a pretty strong counterpoint.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Contrast that with contraception: the Church is condemning the technology itself, in all forms.  But it is possible that facts could arise that would make the Church reconsider that teaching.  indeed, some might argue that 7B+ (and rising) humans on Earth is a pretty strong counterpoint.




Yeah, the church is really messed up on contraception.  I recall reading once (in relation to the AIDS epidemic in Africa) that the church debated and eventually agreed that the use of contraception for the prevention of disease was okay if one spouse had AIDS.

They actually had to debate that?

-facepalm-

This is why I don't base my faith on the rules of religious organizations.  The church is made up of and administered by people, and people are fallible, and some of them are (unfortunately) horrendously stupid to boot.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Contrast that with contraception: the Church is condemning the technology itself, in all forms.  But it is possible that facts could arise that would make the Church reconsider that teaching.  indeed, some might argue that 7B+ (and rising) humans on Earth is a pretty strong counterpoint.




Misconception.

The Church is condemning the approach on the grounds that sex is ordered to procreation (never mind that this supposed Natural Law argument completely ignores the clitoris).

They also had this argument out with the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. And the winning argument was the minority report which claimed that the Roman Catholic Church couldn't be wrong because it had the assistance of the Holy Spirit and that to claim otherwise would be to claim it wasn't the One True Church.

I quote the final section of the minority report, the one that lead to the writing of Humanae Vitae below. Please pay particular attention ot the final paragraph.

If the Church should now admit that the teaching passed on is no longer of value, teaching which has been preached and stated with ever more insistent solemnity until recent years, it must be feared greatly that its authority in almost all moral and dogmatic matters will be seriously harmed. For there are few moral truths so constantly, solemnly and, as it has appeared, definitely stated as this one for which it is now so quickly proposed that it be changed to the contrary.

What is more, however, this change would inflict a grave blow on the teaching about the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to the Church to lead the faithful on the right way toward their salvation. For, as a matter of fact, the teaching of Cast Connubii was solemnly proposed in opposition to the doctrine of the Lambeth Conference of 1930, by the Church “to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals…in token of her divine ambassadorship…and through Our mouth.” Is it nevertheless now to be admitted that the Church erred in this her work, and that the Holy Spirit rather assists the Anglican Church!

Some who fight for a change say that the teaching of the Church was not false for those times. Now, however, it must be changed because of changed historical conditions. But this seems to be something that one cannot propose, for the Anglican Church was teaching precisely that and for the very reasons which the Catholic Church solemnly denied, but which it would now admit. Certainly such a manner of speaking would be unintelligible to the people and would seem to be a specious pretext.

Other claims that the Church would be better off to admit her error, just as recently she has done in other circumstances. But this is no question of peripheral matters (as for example, the case of Galileo), or of an excess in the way a thing is done (the excommunication of Photius). This is a most significant question which profoundly enters into the practical lives of Christians in such a way that innumerable faithful would have been thrown by the magisterium into formal sin without material sin. But let there be consulted the serious words of Pius XI in his “Directive to priests who are confessors and who have the care of souls” (1930). Also let there be consulted the words of Pius XII in his “address to the cardinals and bishops on the occasion of the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (1950):

    "This way (namely, of liberation from the law of God) can never be taken because it is hurtful and harmful even when it is a question of someone who wishes to bring help to men in difficult situations of conjugal life. Therefore it would be pernicious to the Church and to civil society, if those who had care of souls, in teaching and in their way of life, would knowingly remain silent when the laws of God are violated in marriage. These laws always flourish, whatsoever the case may be."

For the Church to have erred so gravely in its grave responsibility of leading souls would be tantamount to seriously suggesting that the assistance of the Holy Spirit was lacking to her.​
The Roman Catholic Church nailed its colours to the mast with Humanae Vitae when the world population was over 3.5 billion and rising (and at that point, unlike now, showing little sign of levelling off) and little has changed since.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Neonchameleon said:


> Misconception.




Interesting choice of words...



> The Church is condemning the approach on the grounds that sex is ordered to procreation (never mind that this supposed Natural Law argument completely ignores the clitoris).




Nothing you quoted contradicts what I said, namely that they were against the technology itself- I didn't go into the reasons behind that position.

Be that as it may, the position stated is STILL far more within the realm of being changed after an Augustinian examination and revision than is the Church's position on homosexuality.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nothing you quoted contradicts what I said, namely that they were against the technology itself- I didn't go into the reasons behind that position.




No. They are against the principle of the technology. There are currently a _lot_ of forms of contraception from the condom to the IUD to the vasectomy. The only licit ones are variations of the Rhythm Method.



> Be that as it may, the position stated is STILL far more within the realm of being changed after an Augustinian examination and revision than is the Church's position on homosexuality.




Twice nowt's still nowt.


----------



## tomBitonti

I don't think that the quote presented above refutes Danny's statement, but I did think that the Roman Catholic Church was against contraception in principle.  I thought that the principle was based on the tie between sex and reproduction, and on the sanctity of reproduction.

Thx

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Neonchameleon said:


> No. They are against the principle of the technology.




Dude, why do you keep posting as if we disagree on that?



> Twice nowt's still nowt.




In my lifetime, the Church has moved from an absolute ban on chemical & mechanical contraception to making exceptions in the case of preventing the spread of disease.  Now, that's not trivial.  

This can happen because the teaching of the church CAN evolve. Taken from a source meant to be used by those converting to Catholicism:



> Infallibility just means that certain teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be without error. That's not to say that they are the full and final word on the topic: later teachings may deepen and further clarify aspects of the original teaching.




In addition, the doctrine of papal infallibility arose in [MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION] mid-1800s, AND the position you quoted was indeed the minority opinion.

IOW, there's room for change.  Not much, but definitely more than "nowt".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Now a black pastor has delivered an interesting sermon to his flock.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b09e4b0074ba5a4d6e2?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

It isn't a big congregation, but this is a big thing.  Black churches and blacks in general tend to be much more conservative on this issue than their Caucasian counterparts.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now a black pastor has delivered an interesting sermon to his flock.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b09e4b0074ba5a4d6e2?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
> 
> It isn't a big congregation, but this is a big thing.  Black churches and blacks in general tend to be much more conservative on this issue than their Caucasian counterparts.




I saw that, and was glad to see it.

After the attack by Dylan Roof, you saw churches everywhere preach love and forgiveness and respect of each other----on racial contexts.  But that didn't seem to apply to people who were GLBT.  It seemed they were still awful people and fair game.  It's nice to see that the hypocrisy wasn't lost on this pastor.  I have a lot of respect for him, and hope more will follow suit.


----------

