LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I'd actually prefer for gay marriage to be legalized, well, via the legal process. However difficult that may be, that is what needs to happen.

From what I can infer, that seems to be Taoist's position as well. I don't see any sinister undercurrent in what he posted.

edited 6th Nov '12 2:39:47 PM by HilarityEnsues

That's rather arrogant and condescending.

I think the ultimate proof can be had in the examples of states who have legalized gay marriage, and not fallen into the ocean.

Chaos hasn't erupted in spades there, no reason it would go any differently in other states. The military didn't suddenly turn into an orgy of mansex, we're the same as we were 10 years ago, more or less. I'm sure the evangelicals will survive.

I think he was concerned that redefining marriage will allow lawmakers to redefine anything they want on a whim, which would cause the rule of law to go down the toilet. He'd have a point, if his basic premise wasn't utter bullshit.

This sums up my position exactly.

I don't see what's arrogant and condescending about "You have every right to get mad at people who subvert the democractic process, but then, don't you yourself subvert the democratic process.

What part of that is utter bullshit?

edited 6th Nov '12 2:47:38 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

I guess what it comes down to is that sovereign rights are being denied by the legal process, and that makes people angry, which leads to them wanting to subvert the legal process. I can't say I blame them. It's something that should be really simple, but it isn't.

Well, for a start, stuff gets redefined all the time. That's how laws evolve and change. There's no precedent set if you fiddle around with one set of stuff that lets you do it with everything else as you please. That would be ludicrous.

Oh, I totally get the idea of "I'm entitled to this thing. It's being denied me. I now have the right to take whatever means I damn well please to get it back."

It's just that, well, we usually call that anarchy. And it usually ends badly for everyone involved.

I saw where you were going with that, and I dig it. But consider if someone said "What's the big deal if we redefine the term inalienable rights to really mean slightly curtailed rights? " My point is, you don't always sneer at people who're concerned about the change in legal definitions.

On Election Day a hundred years ago, my greatgrandfathers would be hung because "right to vote" was a difference concept back then.

edited 6th Nov '12 2:57:15 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

I dunno, the civil rights movement ended pretty well.

Besides, it's not like gay people are suicide-bombing places in protest of their marriage rights on a regular basis (there was that one guy who shot up that Family Research Council building, but he was exactly that - one guy).

On Election Day a hundred years ago, my greatgrandfathers would be hung because "right to vote" was a difference concept back then.

Wait, so why are you complaining about legal rights getting redefined from time to time again?

edited 6th Nov '12 2:59:22 PM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

There is a big difference between changes that open the door to a totalitarian dictatorship and letting someone give next of kin rights to whoever they want. I would hope that any legislator has the two brain cells required to tell the difference.

That's the point really. Unless the legal system is broken beyond repair, the fundamental rights people are worried about should be completely safe.

I'm not worried about rights being redefined from time to time. That's a necessary evolution in any healthy society.

I want balance. We shouldn't treat the rights society is built on like Jenga pieces to be pulled and pushed at will, nor should we consider them so sancrosanct that we never evolve and change to accomaodate more, not fewer, members of our society.

It was an honor

Hey, I warned you.

First: I intended no slight against military orgies of mansex—if they should eventually break out, then Godspeed, I suppose. Secondly: "not falling into the ocean" and "chaos not erupting in spades" is nice to hear, but we're setting the bar a trifle low, don't you think? Thirdly: arrogant and condescending though the characterization you quoted might have been, your post hasn't exactly refuted it ... to put it mildly.

Come to think of it, I probably wasn't being half as arrogant and condescending as warranted.

Jimmy, you're right. You're not being condescending enough. Why don't you break it down and explain to us why same-sex marriage must be given to us by the majority of the people rather than having the Supreme Court declare a ban unconstitutional (or else)? Why must a majority of my ignorant redneck state make decisions about my personal life?

I'm honestly not sure if you are or not; the argument has descended from the spurious to the ridiculous. I am an open anarchist, I see laws and social contracts as entirely deconstructible as the need requires (and kept stable when not), and I consider Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to be two of the greatest men of the twentieth century. Does that clarify things? If you're equating "wrong" with "unwilling to do things 100% by the book of law, which must assume to be a valid system", then we're starting off with very different premises here. Spare me. The rules are always "fair" when seen from the position of the people who are comfortable in the status quo. To bring it back on the topic of religion, it's "unfair" when atheists rage at the Pope when he goes on about how godless secularism is increasing materialism and greed in society, an address he gives from his gilded seat in a church/mansion with greater property value than some entire Third World countries.

The rules of the legislative game are not intrinsically fair. Language is no different; it tends to follow culture, which tends to follow the most comfortable in society (whom many wish to talk like, or talk to, or talk about).

WHAT OTHER RIGHTS.

I'm asking this for what, the third time now? For all the fine talk about the failure of LGBTQ activists to respect other people's rights, no one clear-headed enough to see through these false equivalences - religious LGBTQ allies abundantly included - has actually heard of a single other right that will be compromised should homosexual unions be treated as heterosexual unions are. We're still waiting. We hear vague allusions to threats to the rule of law, and when it's pointed out that societies that have allowed traditional marriage have not collapsed into the sea, we're told that we're setting the bar low. When it's pointed out that societies that have allowed traditional marriage have not seen Christians thrown to the lions or democracy overturned by Gay Big Brother, we hear...what? Deafening silence?

I'm calling it out. This emperor has no clothes. The negative consequences to society of seeking LGBTQ rights through a combination of legislative and civil activism are nonexistent.

How much moral capital did those foamy evangelicals Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi possess, in your opinion? How much did they squander in pursuit of their goals? I'm honestly interested in your answer.

edited 6th Nov '12 5:30:29 PM by RadicalTaoist

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

Obviously. Why do you think this "debate" has been about the method by which gay marriage is legalized and not the actual consequences of it's legalization? It's easy to defend the rule of law, but the prohibition of same-sex marriage? Not so much.

This farce has been... interesting, but at this point we're talking more about the legal system than we are gay marriage.

edited 6th Nov '12 5:59:02 PM by HilarityEnsues

So after watching The Daily Show last night I have a question for the religious folks. Assuming that you want to define marriage of the biblical interpretation of marriage, well where the hell is the biblical interpretation? Adam and Eve? The Bible contains so many different definition of marriage that I'm curious as to how any one of them can be declared "THE Biblical interpretation of marriage". Hell, are Adam and Eve even married? It’s been a long time wince I read the Babe and I'm rather curious about where people get this "Biblical definition" from.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I never understood people using "The Biblical Defintion of Marriage" as an ideal form of marriage, considering the polygamy and cousin marriages. I don't know about everywhere else, but I am pretty sure in US those are not exactly permitted.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

I'm not the the educated theologian others are, but I'll take a stab. The Biblical mating ideal is one man and one woman as evidenced by Adam and Eve. There wasn't anything like a government, taxes, or even countries as we knew them, so there really wasn't a city hall anywhere to give a marriage license. But the model was what was important.

Over time certain things were "allowed". Not 'endorsed' but allowed. A man with multiple wives, a rapist marrying his victim, etc. And the Bible is more or less explicit that these things were done to accommodate mankind's quirks and foibles, not because God okayed them.

The thing that has undermined the evangelical argument against gay marriage from the get-go is that in this country we COMPLETELY ignore Biblical marriage. You've got Senators, even church pastors, who decry gay marriage, but they're on their 4th wife.

Polarstern put it the best I've ever heard, "I'm not sitting in the back of the marriage bus while some joke on their 14th marriage has full rights."

Check and mate.

edited 13th Nov '12 3:19:51 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Things that actually are endorsed by the Bible include a man being forced to marry his brother's widow and sleep with her. That's endorsed by God. He's punished by God when he doesn't.

A lot of those things are spoken of as being endorsed by God in that very book. They're just no longer endorsed by the church. But the church has never really had much of a relation to the Bible.

That and there's the fact that most of the most prominent married couples in the Bible are incestuous...

edited 13th Nov '12 4:37:07 PM by shimaspawn

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

I could make a comment on this, but I won't.

I'm sure they have some way to justify it. Their favorite commandment is "thou shalt do as I say, not as I do".

Well, I had more to say but I spent some time on a Mormon site and I've come to see that we (Christians) do less good arguing the same points over and over.

As for "Do as I say, not as I do", I call grade A bullshit on that' it's more or less a complete affront to the Christian ideal.

It was an honor

I sympathise... I spent some time at school with an... upfront Mormon. She was... "interesting" to talk to on some subjects for a couple of years (as in "brick wall" kind of interesting). A few years in an Anglican boarding school, did, however, moderate her tone over time.

Haven't met any Mormon. Then again, I doubt that there are Mormons in Asia.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

You misunderstand my dear. The Mormons on this particular site were extremely down-to-earth and refreshing. Imagine a whole website full of Starships Maxima.

What with Romney's defeat, there was a lot of discussion about how to be loyal to the faith while fitting in with a world that doesn't "just take our word for it" anymore.

It helped me to see that sometimes it's not good to re-argue the same points over and over again. At a certain point, there's simply no more progress to be made. Rather than seeming brave and determined, you look like a pompous stubborn fool. I have a bunch of flaws, but I'd rather not be guilty of that on top of everything else.

It was an honor

Ooops, my bad: she was the kind that give Evangelicals a run for their money. For some reason, whenever anybody says "Mormon", I remember her.

edited 13th Nov '12 5:35:37 PM by Euodiachloris