LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Banning gay marriage runs roughshod over the religious because it stops religions that allow gay marriage from being allowed to marry people. It does not force any religion to marry anyone they don't want to. It just stops religious marriages.

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

@shima: So how do we change that?

edited 19th Feb '13 1:07:43 PM by Wildcard

Another good point- suppose I want to get married to my long-term-committed partner in a Wicca ceremony? The government barring gay marriage subverts that.

edited 19th Feb '13 1:07:41 PM by LMage

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

Specifically, it refuses to grant legal recognitions to marriages performed by religious institutions that are not in conformity with the law.

Of course, legal recognition and religious recognition are two different things. If you're married "in the eyes of God", do you really care about legal recognition? Maybe, maybe not. But wanting the legal recognition is a worthy cause that shouldn't be limited by the arbitrary will of some guy in a funny hat.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

So Jhim, I take it you want to allow gay marriage then? After all, that's the only way to do what you propose. A)Maintains the interest of the institution by making for more stable unions and thus a more stable state. B) It respects the autonomy of religious institutions by not banning marriages that are legitimate in their religion just because another religion doesn't like them. C) Is even handed by treating gays and straights the same without conceding A) or subverting B). That's everything you asked for.

edited 19th Feb '13 1:10:19 PM by shimaspawn

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

Whether or not you believe it should, it does; and for a decisive number of citizens, rightly or wrongly, its legitimacy as a civil status is owing to its nature as a religious rite. This suggests that empowering religious authorities with discretion to act as agents of the state is a wise concession to those citizens who already believe in the latter's superior competency w/r/t the institution.

And doing so doesn't automatically empower religious functionaries to influence the government's handling of marriage. (Of course it doesn't forbid them from making their cases in the public square, either.) But so far, I'm not aware of any state that's instituted "same-sex marriage" where a religious leader has used his own power to conduct marriages to somehow thwart a same-sex ceremony at the courthouse or city hall.

Shima, I've already been over this pretty thoroughly in the "Gay Rights and America" thread, which is where it belongs and will stay. I'm opposed to current proposed legislation/court decrees for thoroughly non-religious reasons, make of them what you like. But whatever valid reasons a religion may have for disapproving of homosexuality, and whether or not I share them, I don't believe they should be allowed to affect civil marriage law.

edited 19th Feb '13 1:22:43 PM by Jhimmibhob

I'm saying it's fine if the religious people wanna recognize a marriage with their own ceremony. It is not fine if they want it to be legally binding if they did not get permission from the state first.

edited 19th Feb '13 1:23:56 PM by Wildcard

Essentially, the two of you are arguing with each other, despite holding the same position.

The state does empower religious institutions to perform marriage, and no, religious marriages are not legally marriage unless they have been performed by an institution so empowered.

edited 19th Feb '13 2:13:47 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

@Jhim: Riddle me this: You say marriage has a dual nature (religious and secular), and that we shouldn't stop churches from marrying people. What about the churches that do approve of gay marriages and already do them, with or without the state's approval, such as the Episcopalian Church or the Unitarian Universalist Church? Is it not ignoring the dual nature and preventing churches from marrying people to not recognize the gay marriages those churches officiate?

Hell no!! She is a dirty bisexual, I'm a pure lesbian!

edited 19th Feb '13 2:47:33 PM by kay4today

You mean she's flexible and enlightened and you're stuck in your simpleton "girl-only" vanilla relationship.

Pfft. Felicia Day is too good to play you anyway.

Ahem: That was a joke.

edited 19th Feb '13 3:11:23 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

But girls are perfect and boys have cooties!

Of course you'd think that, you plebe. It's okay, not like I want you anyway.

(beat)

Where are we going with this again??

It was an honor

That's only a problem if you haven't had your cootie shots!

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

Hey, I don't have cooties!

It was an honor

Yeah right.

Nowhere good, clearly.

What's the status of the Anglicans right now?

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

As always, caught between a rock and a rich place.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Issuing a license to marry is already more interaction between church and state than in some other places; where I live there is no "religious ceremony pending" legal status: The only legally binding marriage is the one at the town hall, by the mayor.*

Religious people have both ceremonies, usually on the same day.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

The British group Coalition 4 Marriage, the main focus group opposed to the Equal Marriage Bill, has released a series of adverts called "Marriage Minutes". They consist of the head of the Coalition 4 Marriage, Dr Sharon James (what her title derives from seems unclear), discussing marriage for a minute.

It is a pathetically "radical" attempt at viral advertising. Here is an example. They seem either to be aimed at children, or particularly stupid adults. The alternative is that C4M just can't find any decent public speakers.

Something about them is sheer Nightmare Fuel. In fact, they are so Narmful that the Coalition 4 Equal Marriage C4EM, the UK's main pro-fair marriage group, posts them on their own Facebook and Twitter feeds so that us fair marriage activists can have a good laugh at how silly those funny reactionaries are.

edited 20th Feb '13 3:40:57 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

I think that once the evil deeds are more than a century into the past, then unless the organization in question is still taking steps to ignore them or dodge the blame, it's past time to blame them. I would hope, at least, that the churches who have reluctantly tolerated homosexuals aren't still being blamed a century from now for not being accepting enough.

So tempted to sig this.

I would say that to a lot of people, it is both, and thus where the problem lies. I'm sure that a majority would claim it is the religious aspects that are more important, yet the government/social aspect is why most people get one.

I don't know of any vocal protestors against gay marriage who are Hindu. Nor do I know of any for gay marriage, either. It's not an age contest.

I can't speak to that; all of my Wiccan friends are openly gay and trans friendly.

Corrective, or elective?

How do you legally become a pink dragon?

Give it twenty ... make that forty years, and that might change. Might.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I was refuting marriage being a christian institution. You can hardly claim to have invented something which predates you.

The first recorded marriage (if I am correct) is from ancient Athens, hundreds of years before Rome's conception let alone Christianity's.

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

It amuses me that the video has blocked comments.

That usually means they don't want to debate.

There's pretty considerable cultural evidence that marriage predates reliable record of it altogether.

edited 20th Feb '13 4:30:30 PM by Pykrete