LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

There's also the historical fact that separate but equal doesn't work. If you have two different terms for one thing, it's easy to end up passing laws about one that end up not applying to the other. Like health care, or inheritance rights, or hospital visitation.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

In fairness, most cases of 'separate but equal' are rarely ever actually equal.

Personally I say give the heterosexuals marriage and the same sex couples civil unions. As long as the difference is in name only both sides walk away happy; the LGBT get the legal benefits of marriage and the 'traditional marriage' advocates get there pointless moral victory. Plus LGBT would probably face less of an up hill battle if they started campaigning for gay Civil Unions instead of gay marriages. But then again I'm looking at this from a pragmatic perspective, so I expect the idealists to disagree.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:38:09 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

This is indeed quite the interesting case due to how close the two things are. All you need is to simply make sure you simply don't exclude the phrase "And civil unions" and in the case of certain things make slight alterations (if it only applies to one sex for instance) to the wording.

Though many states do neglect this, California's civil unions are indeed pretty much exactly like marriage in everything but word.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:37:19 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming

The fact that it's so easy to do though means that especially with a lot of really old laws that it's extremely easy to discriminate against civil unions, even in California. It might have all the punch on paper, but it doesn't have the case law to back it up.

And why does it need a separate term? That just smacks of bigotry and unfairness.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:42:50 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I'm not saying it does, and it would be good to have marriage. After all the main difference is Civil Unions don't annoy certain religious people as much or not at all. All I was trying to say is in the end in certain places the argument of civil unions versus marriage is the argument over the right to use some words.

California is pretty liberal anyway, you can more or less count on the higher courts ruling in a gay couples favor here.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:53:07 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming

And what happens when that couple with the Civil Union winds up on a road trip to Arizona where the fact that they don't have a real marriage suddenly becomes an issue? Just because California is good within it's borders doesn't actually help gay couples if they leave nor does it help them get protection at a federal level.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

My parents have the even more extreme view that in the legal sense all marriages should be lumped under civil unions. It's an interesting approach, even if it comes down to them just wanting to keep a word monopolized by an institution that never had that monopoly.

In any case, it's something that does have to be normalized across the country. Getting screwed on insurance or what have you just because you go a hundred miles in any given direction is stupid.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:09:48 PM by Pykrete

Again, I wasn't saying I'm extemely happy with the current state of affairs in California, I'm just reasonably content. You're attacking a position I don't even hold.

Indeed for things to be fine in the whole US they have to be fine in the whole US. I'm not debating that.

But really we're digressing, this is about Homosexuality and Religion, not the US government and gay marriage.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:11:32 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming

A Civil Union is just a lesser form of Marriage. Which is part of reason why we want it fought for.

A Marriage is a sacred union of two or more people. I do not mean sacred as in Religious either. I mean as in it's very special. It has a much higher meaning.

Civil Unions are just a slightly more notable relationship that may or may not be given some decent rights.

It also stands that using two different terms means they really aren't equal by any means. There is absolutely nothing different from a Gay or Straight Marriage(or Polygamous either) in any possible way. They're the same thing. I won't make a derail about Polygamy, as the only reason it doesn't work is because of the tax problems, and nothing more.

Civil Unions should be saved for a set of people who plan to live together, but do not love eachother or have any special relationship whatsoever. In other words, it's an option for couples who just want to live together but gain some benefits and nothing more.

And Marriage should be saved for couples who actually plan to live together for the rest of their lives, and other various things related to that.(like having a family)

I admit it's hard to explain how different they are, but they're not the same, and can't be treated the same here. Yes, making homosexual couples unable to have Marriage and being forced into a Civil Union is a bigotry-based move. That's why they existed, to treat them as a lesser relationship.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:13:22 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

@Pyk

The thing is, if you strip marriage of all it's legal standings and purposes then it becomes a purely social and religious term, which means that no one can say a couple is married or not married as long as they have satisfied their own beliefs about what marriage is, and as long as the couple (straight or gay) have the documentation saying they are civily unified or whatever, no one can block them from any establishment since that's thee only thing with legal standing.

I mean, when you really think about it, it's actually not that bad of an idea, but it will never happen. Way to many logistical issues.

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

Civil unions are an attempt at a logical compromise in an issue that has never been about anything that is even remotely logical.

You cannot reason with people who think that same-sex couples they've never met are somehow a threat to their own marriage. You can't argue with someone who can ignore the part about stoning people to death when they don't attend the Sabbath yet still think it makes perfect sense to take the Bible on it's word regarding homosexuality. I'm sorry, it's just not going to work. Marriage equality is something that will have to happen in spite of these fundamentalists, because they aren't the kind of people you can simply win over.

I personally agree with Pyr's parents since I want religion out of marriage completely. Of course, that'd be politically impossible.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:19:49 PM by HilarityEnsues

We already have something for those people

It only has a higher meaning because of religious and social traditions.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:34:59 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

@shima: I remember from my civics class, and I'm going to be crappy and say I don't remember where it is, but I do know that all states have to basically accept as valid legal documents from any of the other states. Colorado can't tell you that your New York driver's license doesn't count.

I could be mistaken about this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that one state can't invalidate a legal document from another state.

Actually, they can. For example, if you have a hunting license for, say, boars in one state, but travel to a state where boar hunting isn't allowed, then your license is considered null.

Same goes for marriage. If you're gay and legally married in one state, but then go to a state that doesn't allow marriage for gay people, then your marriage license is considered null.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Exactly but this is a derail better suited to the Gay Rights and America thread so please move it over there.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

@Deviant: Then we can get rid of Civil Unions because they're useless now.

/End Derail, since that's all I had to say on the subject in its entirety.

Quest 64 thread

Except in Washington D.C. (although it isn't a state).

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Technically we already have that. Right now the religious official overseeing the marriage just helps fill out the same civil paperwork as every other couple getting married alongside the big ceremony, regardless of religion, and a Justice of the Peace can do it too. We're just, you know, denying the same paperwork to same-sex couples.

edited 28th Oct '12 5:27:53 PM by Pykrete

Carciofus

Homosexuality isn't an attraction to "actions". It's an attraction to people.

Nevertheless, what is often considered sinful is a number of actions that homosexual people are attracted to.

Thinking that someone is hot is not, in itself, a sin. How could it be, when it is not something you have any control about?*

edited 29th Oct '12 3:29:31 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I thought it was a sin to covet your neighbour's wife? Who knew, thoughtcrime is Older Than Orwell.

Yes, it is. Coveting, however, is quite a different thing that from thinking that someone — or something — is attractive.

If I notice that my neighbour has a hot wife, I am not committing a sin; but if I keep thinking about it, and about how my neighbour does not deserve her, and about how much more fair would it be if she were with me instead, then yes, that's coveting and it is most definitely a sin.

Thoughts, in some circumstances, can certainly be sinful; but the thing is that a sin is something that must involve an act of will — something that you choose whether to do or not. A stray thought, like "damn, my neighbour's wife is hot", might be cause of concern in that it might provide an opportunity to sin; but in itself, it is not a sin.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Carcio: Depends on who you ask. A lot of bible literalists and fundamentalists think that sexual attraction is adultery, based off Matthew 5:27-28.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

But what is "sin" anyway? What does it even mean? Is it an act? Is it a state of being? Is it a mentality? And who has the right to declare what is or is not a sin?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Yeeecchhhhh, I'm gonna avoid the topic of sexually repressive beliefs and go back to responding to Starship.

I did not assume, I inferred. I looked at your conclusion, and found it incorrect. Correspondingly, I have to conclude that, if you've spent a lifetime thinking about this as you say, your premises or your reasoning are flawed. That, or you haven't spent so much of a lifetime thinking about it and haven't had the chance to properly reason it through, though this last possibility seems farfetched to me - you've shown evidence of arguing in good faith.

The point is, if I find your position wrong, I have to understand why you are wrong, and there are a limited number of explanations available to me. You are either not making the effort to challenge the position that your particular version of the Bible is indeed infallible, or you're not making the effort to challenge the assumption that a good Christian must hold the Bible to be infallible, or you're not making the effort to go through the arguments and findings we've raised that point out all the linguistic drift and political meddling that would have compromised any divine message the Bible held (nevermind the points that are flat-out scientifically wrong and need to be interpreted symbolically, or the myths that were clearly cribbed from other myths of the period). I cannot eliminate all the possibilities in which you aren't showing some form of cognitive laziness at some point in your reasoning unless I accept your position, and I've already found your position lacking.

Are you denying that political meddling as evidenced in the Councils of Nicea happened? Are you denying that there was translation drift in the Bible, and conflict between its multiple authors? If I see a ton of info suggesting something is false, and I don't see a ton of info contradicting that, then I have to make an inference to the best explanation. You don't have to. Bigots and predators are good at social camouflage, and as the Internet shines the bright lights of exposure into the damp little hiding holes, they're only going to get better.

Am I making the self-policing argument? Maybe. I was absolutely outraged when I heard about the obscene levels of sexism hiding in certain corners of the atheist and skeptic communities, and am in full support of the Atheism+ movement to bring in more social justice awareness and smoke the bigots out of their hiding places. I live in that house, it's my responsibility to clean it.

But I'm not going to ask for everyone to go on a crusade to purify their social groups; it's not realistic to demand it. I will ask for people to realize whom they cover when they endorse a position, and what kind of scumbags can try to hide behind your position and pretend to be discussing in good faith while dumping the most toxic nonsense into the discourse. It's a tough request; you have to think suspiciously and imagine the worst of people who think like you and endorse the positions you endorse. But it's worth it, just to deny the predators and bigots their hiding places.

Valid and granted. Whether or not a given area is an echo chamber is a testable assertion, as is whether or not an individual's reasoning is being influenced by such an echo. Okay. You got me. I can't deny it. I didn't ask them.

I'm curious, admittedly, as to what answer they could possibly give that would justify pushing out one of the best priests and teachers the local Catholic school had ever known, an upright man who contributed to his community and admired even by atheists like my parents, just so a bunch of small-minded thugs would have an easier time throwing bricks and pipes at Pride marchers. Really. What eloquent response to my questions would make sense of that?

I happen to think they're wrong too.Biblical infallibility is silly. Well...that doesn't seem to be what you were expecting before.

I've been arguing, as I usually do, about the consequences of holding given positions rather than just the positions themselves. Beliefs are cheap; you can fill your head with them. Consequences for other people in this life - the only one I have reason to believe we're given, mind you - are of considerably greater interest to me. I can try to read your posts as positively as possible and still see some awful consequences emerging from the resulting positions.

So far, the counterpoints you've raised are that the Bible commands Christians to love, and that it establishes a precedent of nonjudgment in regards to the sins of others. I'll grant them as fairly valid, certainly more valid than other interpretations of the Bible. Am I on base in my quick summary of your counterpoints? I don't want to misrepresent you.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.