it's been a while since we had a thread on gay marriage

[Phatscotty]

[comic boy]

I sort of side with the Greek chap here, if a gay couple want to call their civil union a marriage then fine whats the problem , and of course they should recieve the same benefits. However they should not be allowed to ride roughshod over the sensibilities of others and if a particular church refuses to conduct a service for them then so be it. In the case of refusing general services, wedding photography for instance, then common sense and decency should prevail , its easy to make an excuse without the need to be blunt or offensive.

[MeDeFe]

Some people need to understand that a religious marriage and the state recognizing two people as married are not the same thing, despite the same word being used. People can be religiously married without the state recognizing it, and the state can recognize a marriage despite the involved persons never having seen a priest(ess) or similar.

To permit gay marriage is not about a religion recognizing a marriage. Rather it's about people, generally, having to recognize a marriage that their religion dictates they should not believe. For example, if Evangelical X is walking down the street with his wife and encounters Gay Man 1 and Gay Man 2, who are married, Evangelical X does not believe he, as an indivdiual, should be required to recognize the marriage. A poor example, yes, but imagine if Evangelical X owns a store that sells wedding gifts or is a wedding photographer (there was a case about this I think) or is an employer of Gay Man 1 who wants to bring his spouse to a party where only spouses are permitted. Evangelical X would feel uncomfortable in such situations and his religion, a very large part of his life, would dictate that he could not recognize such marriage.

I will not even deign to comment on the "walking down the street" example.

If evangelical X sells wedding gifts I don't see why he should care who gets them.

If evangelical X is a photographer specializing in wedding ceremonies... Well, what does he do about Hindu ceremonies? Worshipping idols and all that. (Catholic ceremonies, too, for that matter, with all those statues and pictures of saints and stuff). But back to the Hindus, that's definitely not a marriage before god in the eyes of an evangelical.
No, noone is forcing him to recognize any couple as religiously married, if evangelical X's sensibilities are so offended by what he considers ungodly, he should make clear up front that he only caters to certain groups of people that are in line with his own beliefs.

As for bringing spouses to a party... on the one hand you have a point, on the other you don't. Technically the evangelical host of the party would have to recognize them as legally married (but still not as religiously married) if he really threw such a party, on the other hand this is an incredibly weak example because it's entirely in a social setting. You only throw such a party if you know that everyone invited is either married (in a way you approve of) or not in a relationship at all, otherwise you keep it more general ("everyone may bring one person with them" or something like that). In such a case it's really up to the individuals to navigate the waters of awkwardness. Arguing against legally recognized same-sex marriage because someone might bring along the wrong person to a party? Come on, you can do better than that, forbidding the sale of alcohol because it offends muslims makes a far stronger argument.

I think freedom of religion still carries enough weight to allow priest(esse)s to say they will not do a religious marriage for two people if it goes against their religion.

You would think so. Except that religion in the last few decades has been continuously under siege. The government, the media, television, movies, and the general public have increased the instances of religious hatred. For example, there are fears that the government may require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The religious are roundly mocked on television news and commentary shows. Movies denigrate religions. And the general public is clamoring for restrictions that would impinge on one's religion (for example, requiring Muslim women to go through body scanners).

But what's the alternative to allowing people to stand up and point out things a religion claims, maybe draw comparisons, and then say that those things are silly (aka "mocking religion")? Anti-blasphemy laws like they recently passed in Ireland? For thousands of years religion dictated what could and could not be said. It is only in the last hundred years or so that we have finally and definitely begun to change that. It's taken us long enough to attain the freedom to finally talk freely about religion without fear of being silenced, be it by prohibiting one's works from being published, placing people under house-arrest, or forcing them to recant. If mockery and criticism all around (not only religion and the religious are being mocked, it's the non-religious, too, the liberals, the conservatives, the libertarians, the socialists, the communists, the capitalists, there is no group that is not being made fun of in any way) is the price we have to pay for thinking and speaking freely, I am more than willing to pay it. If movies and the rest of the media only denigrated religion you would have a point, but they don't, so you don't either.

I am opposed to body scanners. Not because they impinge on my religious beliefs, but because I see them as symptomatic of a trend towards complete surveillance of everyone. I realised that certain religious people could be quite offended by those scanners even before you brought it up. If these scanners were introduced by law, the state would have to consider such things beforehand, so as to make sure it remains neutral towards religious beliefs, if airports and airlines began introducing them, they would have to adress these concerns or possibly suffer an economic setback from people choosing to fly to and from other locations that are less intrusive.
I doubt that the public "clamoring" for body scanners is a sign of hatred of religion, more likely it's a sign of "the public" not thinking things through.

Then some people (no, not you, because you seem to be capable of thinking) need to ask themselves whether a Talibanistan where religion dictates the law, even for those who have a different religion, is really preferable to a free society.

These are not beliefs of one religion. There are many religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) that believe homosexuality is wrong. Thus, we are not creating a theocracy.

Then that only means there's a trinity in the theocracy in this case. Whenever laws are passed or not passed because of religious concerns (which is not the same as concerns about the religious) it leans towards the theocratic. Furthermore, Christianity and Judaism at least are split on the matter, I am not adequately informed to comment on Islam here, but to imply that these religions and their adherents universally reject legally recognized same-sex marriage is dishonest. The point remains: the religious beliefs of some dictates the law for those who believe otherwise. That people from different religions may hold similar beliefs on some matters does not change or in any way invalidate this argument.

[thegreekdog]

CONTINUOUS DISCLAIMER (to avoid cries of "troll" and "homophobe") - I am playing Devil's Advocate. I'm for gay marriage.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program...

As for bringing spouses to a party... on the one hand you have a point, on the other you don't. Technically the evangelical host of the party would have to recognize them as legally married (but still not as religiously married) if he really threw such a party, on the other hand this is an incredibly weak example because it's entirely in a social setting. You only throw such a party if you know that everyone invited is either married (in a way you approve of) or not in a relationship at all, otherwise you keep it more general ("everyone may bring one person with them" or something like that). In such a case it's really up to the individuals to navigate the waters of awkwardness. Arguing against legally recognized same-sex marriage because someone might bring along the wrong person to a party? Come on, you can do better than that, forbidding the sale of alcohol because it offends muslims makes a far stronger argument.

It's not necessarily just about awkwardness. It's about potential law suits that could occur because of such a situation. If a gay couple cannot attend a party as a couple because the host does not recognize them as married, that could (and likely would) result in a law suit against the host; specifically if the party is work related. There are other situations as well, where a person's religion would conflict with the laws of the state or federal government in question - for example, selling a house or car to a married gay couple.

If mockery and criticism all around (not only religion and the religious are being mocked, it's the non-religious, too, the liberals, the conservatives, the libertarians, the socialists, the communists, the capitalists, there is no group that is not being made fun of in any way) is the price we have to pay for thinking and speaking freely, I am more than willing to pay it. If movies and the rest of the media only denigrated religion you would have a point, but they don't, so you don't either.

Most of the rest of your post has to do with things not having to do with gay marriage. The problem with what I've quoted above is that while there is mocking of liberals, communists, etc., etc., there is a cultural sensitivity to mocking or even criticizing things like homosexuality or racial relations. For example, the school district of Denver recently indicated that it would serve a southern style lunch for Martin Luther King Day. There is a national outcry that the food being served is racist. This sort of outcry does not happen when television shows mock Catholic priests as pedophiles or Christian preachers as racists. Further, many Christians would argue that the moral decay of society would continue by allowing homosexuals to marry. Moral decay results in things like higher incidences of crime.

Then that only means there's a trinity in the theocracy in this case. Whenever laws are passed or not passed because of religious concerns (which is not the same as concerns about the religious) it leans towards the theocratic. Furthermore, Christianity and Judaism at least are split on the matter, I am not adequately informed to comment on Islam here, but to imply that these religions and their adherents universally reject legally recognized same-sex marriage is dishonest. The point remains: the religious beliefs of some dictates the law for those who believe otherwise. That people from different religions may hold similar beliefs on some matters does not change or in any way invalidate this argument.

It's not just a "religious thing." It's a cultural thing as well. Our culture and our founders did not contemplate that homosexuality was morally decent. It's anathema to our society, and now, not only are we accepting homosexual relationships, but we're talking about making it legal for homosexuals to marry. We're being forced to accept, culturally, that homosexuals can be married; whether or not particular members of society, particular local jurisdictions, or particular states are ready to accept gay marriage.

[2dimes]

I'm mostly here to laugh at the mods. Quick question, where in the bloody blue blazes did phatscotty find that gem?

google "beastiality" :: images :: about page 5. I considered the graphic nature, and concluded that all you could see, really, was his opposable thumb. It could have been anything underneath there...

Part of the penis was definitely visible.

You go girl, don't let anyone tell you there's no santa. All you gotta do is believe.

[MeDeFe]

Before I continue arguing, tgd, between a value of the death of Bambi's mother and Muscle March, what's your sillymeter displaying when you read the arguments you post?

[thegreekdog]

Before I continue arguing, tgd, between a value of the death of Bambi's mother and Muscle March, what's your sillymeter displaying when you read the arguments you post?

Hmmm... hard to gauge. Let me put it this way, I'd love to tag out if someone else would like to pick up the baton. Yeah, I mixed sports metaphors in the same sentence... so what?

[hecter]

You go girl, don't let anyone tell you there's no santa. All you gotta do is believe.

I definitely saw penis in the photo.