Same Sex Marriage, Religion and Politics

Dude, I think your expectation on time is perhaps the problem. I've been staying away from this thread, and even some of the creative writing stuff, because I know that when I sit down again I'll need at least a couple hours to put everything in as I'd like. I wrote a poem this morning. It took about 45 minutes. It wasn't even a very good one.

You'll find a much better reception, from me at least, if you take the time to present examples and any additional facts rather than simply opinions. I was almost proud of you when mentioning the Commerce Clause. I mean, I have a hard time seeing it as analogous, but it was at least a good example of government overreach.

I personally think that religious belief is a personal thing. As such, I think that I should have the right to practice whatever the hell I want, as long as my practice doesn't infringe on other's rights. So, I personally against same sex marriage, but I also against government sanction of same sex or opposite sex marriage. Marriage should be a personal matter between 2 (or more if you into that sort of thing)people.

I personally believe that the marriage 'law' even matter at all is because of the many benefit of marriage couple. I think that if marriage between opposite sex people get tax and whatever other benefit from the government, then same sex should get the same. Now, as for on the religious side of thing. If you're part of a religous group (that's against same sex marriage) but want to have same sex marriage with someone else, then you're free to leave said group.

Like I said, religious belief should be a personal thing.

On Wait, so you're against having a belief that might infringe another person's right, yet you are against marriage of two people of the same sex? Now, I know love isn't technically a right but your opinion could be seen as stopping two people from unifying their love in a legal manner. Not infringing their rights, sure but certainly impinging their happiness (when, let's face it, their unity in the eyes of the law doesn't harm you or  affect your personal rights in any way). Further, you say you should have the right to practice whatever the hell you want but you're not prepared to have same sex couples exercise that very same right? I find it hard to fully understand exactly what you mean, PTG....

It's sort of weird contradiction isn't it?

See, the way I see it is like this: I can believe in whatever the hell I want and also should have the right to exercise my right also, as long as my exercising said right doesn't infringe on other's.

Same principle applies to all other people. So, just because I don't have the same belief as that of my friends, that doesn't mean I can't be friend with them. I don't interfere with their right and freedom, they don't do the same to me. Then we're good.

I am prepared to have same sex couples do whatever they want, just don't expect me to do the same. That's all I'm saying. After all, I don't expected them to stop being homo and turn hetero. As I understand it, that is the very definition of not butting in when you're not wanted.

Let say, I like apple, but hate orange. You on the other hand hate apple but love orange. I don't expect you to change just because I think orange are nasty, lol

Not saying I hate orange though, just a simple clarification.

There is just so many things to reply to here that in no way could even begin to scratch the surface of this discussion, so instead I will just state my own beliefs. My first problem is in the way this conversation tends to always play out and the understanding that marriage is somehow a right. I for one do not see marriage as a right but rather s a twofold agreement. On the part of the participants is is an agreement with their communities to uphold that particular communities standard of wedlock and to observe the traditions set forth by that community. From the standpoint of the community it is a promise to support the couple and to help them continue to stay true to the standards. As such I see no place for government to enter into the equation. In the US where I reside the real problems with marriage began when the communities, who had previously been responsible for setting up the institution of marriage, gave up that responsibility to the presiding government in order to gain some favor such as a tax advantage. The truth is that I don't care if a church believes that gay marriage is acceptable or not and in fact have sent one gay couple to a church I knew would perform their ceremony with no compunction whatsoever. However, I do not support the government being able to determine what communities and adults choose to define as acceptable marriage. If the whole society believes that cohabitation with a contract of sorts (which BTW is how we treat marriage at this time) should be encouraged and rewarded than I am all for it regardless of the sex of the participants, this is not a moral statement but a observation of the understanding we have reached. If, however, said government wants to then call that cohabitation marriage then I disagree with it's right to do so. Marriage should not be defined by a government but rather the community in which the marriage takes place and will live.

To further elaborate on my previous post I will use an example or two. I am as some know a pastor in a mainline christian church and have had much time to consider my stance on this subject. If a couple were to come to me and want to be married in my church by me I would be responsible to ensure that we are in at least some agreement about what that entails. For example I will not marry homosexuals in my church but would have no problem sending them to a church which does and would offer them the support they need. Before you start condemning me though know that I have in the past and will continue to in the future turn away hetero couples who do not agree with my church about what a marriage is as well. I know a lady who has, three times now, married men she cared nothing about in order to get their money when they die in fact I heard her on one occasion say that she would delay calling the ambulance on her last husband to help hurry the process along. I would never preside over this ladies weddings because I feel she does not agree with mine or my church views on marriage. It is never an easy decision on whether to approve a marriage and I don't believe it should be easy. I feel the real problem is that we as a society have chosen to give up our responsibility to watch over one another and are willing to allow our respective governments to tell us what is ok. We have ceased to be persons and groups who hold their responsibilities as vital and have accepted a easy route to send blame elsewhere.

My stance is simple. Granting someone else the same rights I have is not going to somehow infringe on my rights. Gay people get married in Canada, and my rights are the same now as they were before. Those who are against gay marriage will still have the right to their opinion that it's wrong, but they should not have the right to limit the same freedoms and rights that they themselves enjoy.

Side point: Saying you choose who you love is also just flat ridiculous. You can choose to act on how you feel, whether you try to engage in acts of love with someone, but you cannot choose whether or not you feel a connection with someone or not. You cannot choose how you feel. If you could, I would have chosen not to suffer through depression for most of my life.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this entire argument boils down to two groups:

On the one hand, you have people who believe X, and want to use the law to require everyone else to act as if they believe X. X is in some cases religious, in some cases secular--but it's always that person's belief, and by the nature of the debate they are attempting to force others to live by their code.

On the other hand, you have people like me asking why in the name of all the gods in Hell we should be expected to live by someone else's standards. We do not believe X--the secular OR the religious view. Furthermore, we acknowledge that the homosexuals getting married do not believe X. There is, from our perspective, no possible justification for forcing others to live by standards they do not hold.

The entire debate really is that simple. NO ONE has EVER argued that the first group needs to like homosexuals being married. Most in the second group even go so far as to accept that it is the right of the members of hte first group to discriminate against homosexuals (for example, it's the right of a religious organization to refuse to recognize the marriage of homosexuals). What we object to is being forced to accept premises that we do not hold, or being forced to act on those premises.

Thank you FreeWill, DuDziK and Dinwar. All of your posts gave me a differing perspective on the ideas I myself have, from different standpoints, that is.

FreeWill, it makes me smile that there is a pastor out there (and maybe more) who think like you. It also tells me to maybe tone it down a notch with my ultimate dismissal of anything religious. This, in and of itself, is my own silly discrimination and you've helped me to be more open minded myself (or question my value system, again).

DuDz, nice and succinct. It is exactly the point I have been trying to make, without my waffle haha.

Dinwar, a very logical and objective way of putting it. Seems ever more clear in such precise terms.

Just an update on my initial post: I am feeling far more hopeful as the ACT is right on their way to addressing a new bill to the legislative assembly. Not sure how its all gone but even political thinking along these lines is keeping my hope up.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/act-set-to-pass-same-sex-marriage-laws/5036992

FreeWill wrote:Marriage should not be defined by a government but rather the community in which the marriage takes place and will live.

A bit of cognitive dissonance in this statement. It's clever, the way you're using words to try and assume an air of the reasonable, but that doesn't make it so. I'll counter with my favorite hyperbolic replacement:

Rape should not be defined by a government, but rather by the community in which the rape takes place.

The point here is that the community should have no standing to determine or affect that which is a human right. The idea and definition of marriage, regardless of those who may like to think so, is not religiously inspired. It didn't start with Abraham's god and those cultures aren't the only ones puttering about in this world. Again though, that has zero bearing on a human right.

Just an update on my initial post: I am feeling far more hopeful as the ACT is right on their way to addressing a new bill to the legislative assembly. Not sure how its all gone but even political thinking along these lines is keeping my hope up.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/act-set-to-pass-same-sex-marriage-laws/5036992

And in response to what I said - this is one reason why I think it is an inevitability.

Rape should not be defined by a government, but rather by the community in which the rape takes place.

So, out of curiosity, who should define rape?

alvspr wrote:So, out of curiosity, who should define rape?

That's really a deeper question than the logic slap I was giving Freewill. Such questions go into the axioms of moral and immoral. The point was that the community being the arbiter of such things is a problem.

The problem with any of the arguments against gay marriage is that they all contain a logical fallacy if followed back far enough.

Musikaman wrote:

FreeWill wrote:Marriage should not be defined by a government but rather the community in which the marriage takes place and will live.

A bit of cognitive dissonance in this statement. It's clever, the way you're using words to try and assume an air of the reasonable, but that doesn't make it so. I'll counter with my favorite hyperbolic replacement:

Rape should not be defined by a government, but rather by the community in which the rape takes place.

The point here is that the community should have no standing to determine or affect that which is a human right. The idea and definition of marriage, regardless of those who may like to think so, is not religiously inspired. It didn't start with Abraham's god and those cultures aren't the only ones puttering about in this world. Again though, that has zero bearing on a human right.

It's clever how you turn to a false analogy to make your argument seem valid. If we were to take your analogy at face value it would imply that you view rape as a Human Right, because it is the only way you could draw an analogy between gay marriage and rape their is no other link that is readily apparent. It would be important at this time for you to rather than attack my stance as "assuming an air of reasonableness" to explain what exactly constitutes a "human right".
While we are on the subject of logical fallacies lets just address the stawman you so precariously perched to knock down. I did not imply or otherwise state that I believed that religion is the only source of marriages, in fact my entire post pointed to the idea that marriage can happen in any number of communities and in any number of ways. You, however, decided to argue that point rather than to address what I actually stated. Very clever .
So in order to continue this discussion I will need some clarification.
1) How is marriage a human right?
2) Who if anyone is able to dictate human rights?
3) Under what circumstances is the government (any government) allowed to decide what is and is not a right?

Seriously man, consider not playing with me. You lack the requisite skill. Which is odd since you're employed in the snake oil business. If your ability to connect dots is really and truly this limited, just leave this conversation.

My analogy wasn't false. Your inference into it was though:

It is the only way you could draw an analogy between gay marriage and rape their is no other link that is readily apparent

I mean, you're kidding right? Haha? Jokes dude? There's no other readily apparent link between a communal definition of rape and that of marriage? *sigh* Like, you're aware there's a world of misogynists out there, right? A world who think women are just asking for it with the slightest provocation, imagined or otherwise? Oh, BTW, many of the rape apologists rest squarely in the conservative Christian camp, in the US. Then you have entire cultures in other places.... *shudder*

So let me draw you the parallels since you can't seem to. Both are situations where a community defines what they think is the meaning of a word outside of the moral axiom.

Rape is:

any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

End quote. Done. Yet you'll have large communities that will quite often tell you that women were asking for it through some means. We live in a culture where men can't control their urges and it's the woman's fault. We have a trash piece of crap book, two thousand years old, which tells you how to deal with women whom you rape. And I don't care if there's some faulty context at play in some of the references. As a whole, it's misogynistic and treats women like offal.

And please, don't try to tell me that isn't happening in the world regularly. That you don't have small town communities trying to define what rape really is. If you come back on any of that you better bring some very solid facts because otherwise I will shame you beyond redemption.



Do you get the parallels yet? Here's the TL;DR version:

1. Both statements are stating a communal ability to define rights outside of government.
2. Both statements involve a right. One the right to marry and what qualifies as an allowable marriage. Two the right to not be assaulted and what qualifies as assault. Human Rights
3. Both statements involve a human right abused the world over.

I did not imply or otherwise state that I believed that religion is the only source of marriages, in fact my entire post pointed to the idea that marriage can happen in any number of communities and in any number of ways.

No dude, you just twisted words to make it seem like that's what you were saying. You can tell by this line right here:

If, however, said government wants to then call that cohabitation marriage then I disagree with it's right to do so.

Please, OH PLEASE, try and justify a statement of several "communities" being able to have different definitions of marriage, but the government not being able to apply a similar definition from the communities as a whole. I especially want to hear how this has nothing to do with religion. Oh god, this will be sooo good. The cognitive dissonance is giving me tingles. I'm waiting.

1) How is marriage a human right?
2) Who if anyone is able to dictate human rights?
3) Under what circumstances is the government (any government) allowed to decide what is and is not a right?

This is a much, much, MUCH larger conversation than simply gay marriage. This is rights of the individual, the rights of government, the rights of the community. If you truly wish to discuss these things then start a new thread and I'll respond accordingly.

Discussing gay marriage only it's quite simple; it's discriminatory generally in line with religious purpose. There are zero logical reasons, based on any evidence available, to exclude gays from the right to marry. There are no secular reasons to do so. All reasons against gay marriage are purely religious in nature. Including trying to apply a definition of marriage to be one man and one woman only.

Musicman, you are right on at least one account. I am not prepared to consider playing with you as it is true I do lack the requisite skills. I am not prepared to address your obvious blind hatred of all thing religious or your constantly taking what I have written out of context in order to attack single misapplied statements. I am also not willing to resort to personal attacks to belittle you in this exchange. As such answering most of your rant is really an act of futility. I will address some points though in the interest of clarifying my position for others who may be reading this.
1) outside of communities what moral axiom defines marriage? I agree that rape has a very clear definition, however, I do not see marriage the same way. In fact in your post you referred to all the different cultures and marriage, I did some looking and they do not all define marriage the same way so it would see that marriage is actually defined as a communal practice.
2) cognitive dissonance as defined by Websters online dictionary is: : psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously. I am not seeing how my stance when taken fully in context is any thing close to this. But if that is what you see than so be it, I just don't agree with your point.
3) I have not once stated that gays should not be able to marry, only that in my particular community we would not recognize said marriage in the same way we recognize marriages performed within the bounds of our community. If this is discriminatory by your definition than yes it is discriminatory but no more than it would be to not recognize multiple marriages or for that matter marrying a horse and a dog. If you really must go to extremes to get to your point than I think you may be the one feeling some "cognitive dissonance".
It has been an interesting discussion up to this point but I believe you and I have reached a point of disagreement which cannot be surmounted and as such I will say thank you for your viewpoint and thank you for the discussion.

It is apparent that I am not being very clear about my view of marriage. I have done several internet searches to insure that I am not misunderstanding what marriage is perceived to be and I have come up with the following. Marriage is defined by so many people in so many different ways that there is really no single acceptable way to define it. I would point out that in none of the definitions did I find it referred to as a right that humans have, in fact many of the beliefs about marriage show it to be a contract of recognition by a community. By this I can safely say I am not against gays being able to marry whomever they choose and I hope there are communities which would recognize their union and help to make their marriages successful. Because it is so difficult to define marriage I believe this is something that large government agencies should stay away from, in each case they will be using the power of the government to impose a different viewpoint on some portion of the culture. In the United States I take particular offense to the use of the terminology "Holy Matrimony" which is present on most every marriage license. If the government wants to recognize legal marriages without the religious connotation than I have no problem. The use of the government to impose a viewpoint is wrong no matter which side is doing it. I am reminded of a phrase I once heard and I don't know the source but it went like this "When a jackboot is pressing down on your neck, you really don't care whether it is the left or right boot."

Musicman

No.

outside of communities what moral axiom defines rape? I agree that assault has a very clear definition, however, I do not see rape the same way. In fact in your post you referred to all the different cultures and rape, I did some looking and they do not all define rape the same way so it would see that rape is actually defined as a communal practice.

I want you to seriously consider the replacement above for a moment. Preferably a long moment.

You agree that rape has a very clear definition. This is good. What I need you to understand is that the statement above, with the word replacement, is largely true. I want you to understand that Abrahamic religions the world over have very different views of what rape actually is... in addition to different cultures.

Now I want you to think about why that is. Try not to rely on the old "humans are inherently evil" bit.

You may also try and understand that people see you dancing around the gay marriage issue in a similar way.

or for that matter marrying a horse and a dog. If you really must go to extremes to get to your point

Did you just seriously write those things next to each other?

Here's a hint, horses and dogs can't consent to marriage. We can cover bestiality in another thread if you'd like, but it has no bearing in this one.

Finally, extremes are the best first place to go in these discussions. If I can't get you to see my point from an extreme then there's really no point in getting into nuanced context.

FreeWill wrote:Marriage is defined by so many people in so many different ways that there is really no single acceptable way to define it.

NOW you're getting it. Well, kinda. Your wording is telling, sweetheart. See use of the word acceptable.

FreeWill wrote:I would point out that in none of the definitions did I find it referred to as a right that humans have, in fact many of the beliefs about marriage show it to be a contract of recognition by a community.

Biased searching will do that. Don't worry, it's a trap I've had to learn to avoid, so I don't blame you for falling into it. Next time you have this problem, search specifically for what you're not seeing.

Here, let me help.

By this I can safely say I am not against gays being able to marry whomever they choose and I hope there are communities which would recognize their union and help to make their marriages successful. Because it is so difficult to define marriage I believe this is something that large government agencies should stay away from, in each case they will be using the power of the government to impose a different viewpoint on some portion of the culture.

No. Nononononono. This is your problem right here. First you say the government has no right to define marriage and then you say it's so difficult to? It's not difficult at all! And again, the only reason YOU do not want the government to is because it doesn't jive with YOUR definition.

In the United States I take particular offense to the use of the terminology "Holy Matrimony"

Well yeah, of course you do.

which is present on most every marriage license. If the government wants to recognize legal marriages without the religious connotation than I have no problem.

Except that there are sects of Christianity that allow gay marriage. Ooooohhhh what now?!

The use of the government to impose a viewpoint is wrong no matter which side is doing it.

Now THIS is the only place you and I agree, though I'm sure it's for completely different reasons. You don't want your religion tarnished, and I don't want everyone else outside of Abrahamic religions insulted.  

I am reminded of a phrase I once heard and I don't know the source but it went like this "When a jackboot is pressing down on your neck, you really don't care whether it is the left or right boot."

Ah, the typical persecution complex of the Xtian. Oh, well, unless you were referring to this conversation, in which case I'm honored!

Christian persecution complex really. I was referring to the idea of government being used to control population and ideas when I spoke of the jackboot. For one it is wrong even when Christians do it such as when we helped the government create a special class of marriage which is only recognized because it fits our view. We excluded group marriage, gay marriage, polygamy and many others because it didn't fit with our opinion and allowed the government to perpetrate this with it's power. So don't be flattered, you don't even register on my persecution scale you just don't have that kind of power. O:)

Out of everything written that's what you respond to?  

FreeWill wrote: For one it is wrong even when Christians do it such as when we helped the government create a special class of marriage which is only recognized because it fits our view. We excluded group marriage, gay marriage, polygamy and many others because it didn't fit with our opinion and allowed the government to perpetrate this with it's power.

That's an interesting take on it.

So what role should the government have in marriage? Should it care at all?

That's all I had time to respond to earlier.

I took some time and considered the little word replacement you did on my previous post and I now believe it goes further to proving that the rape analogy is a false analogy. Consider this, rape can actually be agreed upon by most everyone with a few noted exceptions as morally wrong. Even to someone who has no belief in God it violates the very principle of not doing harm to another. Rape is also an act perpetrated on an individual while marriage is a contractual arrangement which involves several people and entities. One is an aggressive act done to bring about control while the other is an agreed upon arrangement. So replacing marriage with rape in my statement only serves to illicit a visceral response without really creating a fair and equitable comparison.

Did you really think the horse and dog comment was anything more than Hyperbole. I was just trying to show an extreme which this discussion can be taken to without really being too crude.


   which is present on most every marriage license. If the government wants to recognize legal marriages without the religious connotation than I have no problem.

Except that there are sects of Christianity that allow gay marriage. Ooooohhhh what now?!

Really, I've come to expect more from you than this drivel. Since marriage is practiced by so many different cultures why does it have to have only the Judea-Christian monicker on the government sponsored license. Why not "Gandharva Vivaha" (Hindu) or "Shaman Hand fasting" (Wiccan) or any number of other titles which are not Christian. It sounds like you want it both ways here. No you Christians shouldn't be able to control marriage through the government but yes we want to use the language and traditions which are distinctly Christian.

So what role should the government have in marriage? Should it care at all?

I believe that one purpose of government is to protect the innocent so in regard to marriage the role is to prevent the types of marriages which take advantage of those unable to protect themselves i.e. child marriage, marriage to the mentally disabled, and forced marriages should all watched for by the government. I do not believe it is only the governments job, as I feel each and every one of us are responsible to protect the innocent (I know you may disagree with me here) but this is the only way I see government really having a role in marriage.

Do I understand you correctly? Please tell me if I misinterpreted?

FreeWill wrote:1) outside of communities what moral axiom defines marriage? I agree that rape has a very clear definition, however, I do not see marriage the same way. In fact in your post you referred to all the different cultures and marriage, I did some looking and they do not all define marriage the same way so it would see that marriage is actually defined as a communal practice.

Different cultures have different views on marriage, we don't have to believe in those cultures, but should respect their definition. -- I'm going to take this further that because the US is supposed to be multi-cultural and because proof of marriage provides rights upon a couple (such as medical intervention and passage of money after a death), the US should respect these marriages legally.

FreeWill wrote:3) I have not once stated that gays should not be able to marry, only that in my particular community we would not recognize said marriage in the same way we recognize marriages performed within the bounds of our community. If this is discriminatory by your definition than yes it is discriminatory but no more than it would be to not recognize multiple marriages or for that matter marrying a horse and a dog.

I am totally for gay marriage, but I don't think it should be forced upon religious institutions, ESPECIALLY if it is against their doctrine (however, polygamy is preached for and so is marrying your brother's widow).

_-Scarlett-_ wrote:Do I understand you correctly? Please tell me if I misinterpreted?

Different cultures have different views on marriage, we don't have to believe in those cultures, but should respect their definition. -- I'm going to take this further that because the US is supposed to be multi-cultural and because proof of marriage provides rights upon a couple (such as medical intervention and passage of money after a death), the US should respect these marriages legally.

I think I am in agreement with you here. The thing I have been trying to (unsuccessfully) get across is that I am not bothered by legal marriage or unions or partnerships or whatever they are called but am when a religious context is added by the government. Take out the religious context in marriage and it is not a problem. Not in some time has there been such a good example of why State should not be involved in church business.

_-Scarlett-_ wrote:
I am totally for gay marriage, but I don't think it should be forced upon religious institutions, ESPECIALLY if it is against their doctrine (however, polygamy is preached for and so is marrying your brother's widow).

I agree with this statement. I also don't have a problem with polygamy (if we are talking about legal adults who can enter and leave these marriages) or any other form marriage can take as long as we are talking about competent adults and not anyone who is defenseless or an innocent.

It is now 4 years since my initial post and we are voting, via mail, in the equal marriage rights plebiscite very shortly. We have 3 clear opinions in Australia, pre-vote- No, Yes and I don't even want to answer because I am so angry we are spending so much money on a plebiscite.

Why the heck won't Australia just wake up? I've yet to see how enabling equal marriage rights is a harmful thing? It's always the same, weak excuse. I'm really sick of it. It is pretty simple:

Why should someone NOT have the right to marry the person they love, while another SHOULD have the right? We may as well go around saying single mothers don't have the right to raise their child because it is against the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

*Still furious*

Ckyle7,

I never thought I'd see a day when the US would allow Gay Marriage yet here we are, some 2 years out formt he Supreme Court ruling that changed everything.

I hope your government will see it the same way for you.

Now, if only I could get my church to change it's stance. I'd be able to perform gay marriages and my gay collegues would be able to come out and be honest about their journey. We can but hope.

FreeWill wrote:Ckyle7,

I never thought I'd see a day when the US would allow Gay Marriage yet here we are, some 2 years out formt he Supreme Court ruling that changed everything.

I hope your government will see it the same way for you.

Now, if only I could get my church to change it's stance. I'd be able to perform gay marriages and my gay collegues would be able to come out and be honest about their journey. We can but hope.

Your post is so refreshing to me. You give me hope.

I have not had the best relationship with religion, over the course of my life so it is really wonderful to see someone in your position see the right in this decision. Which is, after all, what most religions advocate, at the end of the day: The right thing to do.