A good video about gay marriage

[StaggerLee]

I mean, what difference does it make?

The major difference to me is the leverage it gives to the political arm of reactionary religionists. Not people like Mitch. And it's their motivation behind the willingness to spend millions of dollars of tithing money on the issue that alarms me. They are not concerned, I assure you, with language.

[gary_s]

No, I understand that. What I mean by the question is that if a theist is willing to accept a same sex couple with all the rights of marriage but with a different legal word, say "Coupling", then what the heck is the difference? It's a childish difference is what it is. But not all theists are willing to go even that far, many still in the same-sex = hell camp and no union at all is their stance. So my question doesn't apply to them. My question would also apply to people like Mitch, however. I don't understand his objection to same-sex marriage and I didn't understand his recent comments so I asked for verification, but he has me on ignore so he probably won't respond.

[StaggerLee]

Yeah, I'm completely baffled by the argument from static specified meanings in the English language over time, as I call it. It's a new one to me. He's smart enough to make me think there must be more to it. Dunno. But I was pleased to see that the argument didn't veer toward religion. Would've made it too easy for me. All of the legal and logical stuff aside, I'm just a married heterosexual who thinks that even an implicit government endorsement of inequality has a real and significant negative impact on actual lives.

[mitchellmckain]

So much for his "only 3 possibilities", and thus I suggest an alternative which I think is better than those 3.

What is your idea for a better option? And for what it's worth, I don't think those 3 stagger mentioned are necessarily the best three, but the most likely, given how our government usually works.

I have repeated it over and over in this thread. What I am suggesting is to avoid the "marriage" question altogether and point out these other types of customs and contracts in other cultures and argue the merits of rights and recognition for those contractual relationship, and that can include explicit federal law prohibiting the prejudicial treatment. Frankly I think it would be very very difficult to argue against, making all their usual arguments that this is not what marriage is irrelevant and leave them no recourse but blatant religious legalism or homophobia.

I know you and others don't think it is about language, but whatever the motivations behind it may be, I do think it is all about language. After all it has been my repeated assertion that religion itself is 95% or more language, which frankly should get a lot of atheist nodding their heads if they weren't so preoccupied with pushing their hypocritically intolerant opinions that religious people are just a bunch of ignorant superstitious fools.

Mitch, if it isn't too much trouble, I would like to understand what you mean by this. What do you mean by being wary of the ideology of the gay rights movement, and how/why are you opposed to it? What exactly are you opposed to?

My issue is with the whole prenatal determination of sexual preference, which I don't believe in. I don't even believe in sexual preference at all. I believe in love. I think that whole approach is not only terribly misguided no matter how much people may have convinced themselves that this is true, but I think it has done a great deal of harm to a great many people.

What can happen when it isn't sufficiently opposed? Why does it need to be opposed?

I have a friend in California who got their engineering degree and when he applied for a licence he was required to take this class run by the gay rights thought police. He made the mistake of voicing his opinion, JUST ONCE, that he didn't think that it was scientifically proven that homosexuality was genetic. And for daring to voice that opinion, which was actually a fact to tell the truth, he was denied his engineering license.

And what compromises does it need?

I will settle for any compromise at all, even the largely empty one of letting the opposition delude themselves that they can control the meaning of the word "marriage". Frankly, I just want the public perception that a compromise was reached, however fictional it may be, so that the gay rights community don't become the dictators of truth and law in the land. I really mean that LITERALLY. I DONT want the leaders of the gay rights movement to be moving into the administrative offices of the government to "lord it over us" in victory. THAT is a result that I will fight against even if it means that gay couples don't get what they want, need and admittedly should have by all rights. Sorry, but there is a lots of times we must choose the lesser of two evils in politics. And a state religion courtesy of the gay rights movement is a greater evil in my book.

I have a similar stand on the abortion issue in this sense, but in that case the uncompromising idelogues are on the side of anti-abortion. I can support a compromise reducing the time limit on legal abortions, but I will NEVER accept this ridiculous self-righteous ideological stand of no compromise and equating any abortion of any kind with murder.

All of the legal and logical stuff aside, I'm just a married heterosexual who thinks that even an implicit government endorsement of inequality has a real and significant negative impact on actual lives.

I also think an implicit government endorsement of inequality has a real and significant negative impact on actual lives, and that is why I completely endorse a very explicit statement of equality by the government where it is need such as in the case of adoption.

But they are not actually the same kind of relationship. They face different kinds of challenges. I sincerely hope that the challenge of predjudice that same sex couples face will disappear soonest. But the challenges of pregnancy for heterosexual couples is one that will never go away. Sure choice are involved in that, but it is a challenge all the same that makes these relationships fundamentally different. As I said before, you may think that such a difference is of no significance or importance but other people think differently. Yes adoption can bring a lot of the same challenges but that is governed/covered by the additional contractual arrangement of adoption.

[gary_s]

I have repeated it over and over in this thread. What I am suggesting is to avoid the "marriage" question altogether and point out these other types of customs and contracts in other cultures and argue the merits of rights and recognition for those contractual relationship, and that can include explicit federal law prohibiting the prejudicial treatment.

What you seem to be saying is make civil unions a federal law. That's a slight alteration of one of Stagger's 3 ideas, "allow civil unions for all". I think this would be a good step, but the LGBT community won't be satisfied with it.

Frankly I think it would be very very difficult to argue against, making all their usual arguments that this is not what marriage is irrelevant and leave them no recourse but blatant religious legalism or homophobia.

I don't think fundamentalists would hesitate to object, Mitch. They already engage in blatant homophobia. North Carolina has just passed a constitutional ban on any sort of legally recognized civil union between same sex couples and I expect that will soon become a trend among the other "Red" states.

I know you and others don't think it is about language, but whatever the motivations behind it may be, I do think it is all about language.

We say it isn't about language because the source of their motivation is not etymology. They really don't care about that. It has to do with their cultural (religious) values. They just hate the idea of homosexuals enjoying public trust and respect. Just ask an Evangelical why they oppose gay marriage and don't stop at "because that's not the definition of marriage". Probe deeper. That argument is just a screen to deflect easy questions, a Fox News talking point. Ask enough probing questions and you will hear them talk about values and culture, the end of the nuclear family, undermining hetero-marriages, and so on. If it were just about etymology, then they wouldn't ever go to those other places. I argued about this with my sister for an hour once and she mentioned the definition of marriage for one sentence. The other 59 minutes were about values.

After all it has been my repeated assertion that religion itself is 95% or more language, which frankly should get a lot of atheist nodding their heads if they weren't so preoccupied with pushing their hypocritically intolerant opinions that religious people are just a bunch of ignorant superstitious fools.

So, you're saying this because religion is just one way to view the universe and the language is not adequate to completely describe an idea that atheists also know to be true by a completely different set of linguistic tools? Am I even close? BTW, I'm trying hard to ignore your implied insult here so please do me a favor and take it easy, will you?

My issue is with the whole prenatal determination of sexual preference, which I don't believe in. I don't even believe in sexual preference at all. I believe in love. I think that whole approach is not only terribly misguided no matter how much people may have convinced themselves that this is true, but I think it has done a great deal of harm to a great many people.

Well that's interesting because we find ourselves in somewhat of an agreement. I disagree about the harm aspect, but I do consider the whole "genetic disposition" approach to be ultimately misguided, although at the specific juncture at which it was employed, it certainly had its uses. That time seems to have passed so I would like to see it retired. My whole problem with it is that since our constitutional rights are based on freedom and liberty, then why must I have any explanation for who I am or what I am? I am who I choose to be and that should be enough. If I say I am homosexual, then deal with it. It's none of your business anyway. I don't owe anyone a genetic proof of what I am. For a country that supposedly prides itself on it's profound degree of liberty, it's appalling that people must offer a genetic explanation for who they choose to be and yet they are still marginalized for it.

I have a friend in California who got their engineering degree and when he applied for a licence he was required to take this class run by the gay rights thought police. He made the mistake of voicing his opinion, JUST ONCE, that he didn't think that it was scientifically proven that homosexuality was genetic. And for daring to voice that opinion, which was actually a fact to tell the truth, he was denied his engineering license.

Mitch, I'm sorry, but that just sounds too outrageous to be true, even for Kalifornica. I'm not saying you aren't being honest, but maybe your "friend" wasn't totally honest with you. That just can't be right. And I'm not being sarcastic or argumentative here. I'm just profoundly confused, to the point that I can't believe that.

I will settle for any compromise at all, even the largely empty one of letting the opposition delude themselves that they can control the meaning of the word "marriage". Frankly, I just want the public perception that a compromise was reached, however fictional it may be, so that the gay rights community don't become the dictators of truth and law in the land. I really mean that LITERALLY. I DONT want the leaders of the gay rights movement to be moving into the administrative offices of the government to "lord it over us" in victory. THAT is a result that I will fight against even if it means that gay couples don't get what they want, need and admittedly should have by all rights. Sorry, but there is a lots of times we must choose the lesser of two evils in politics. And a state religion courtesy of the gay rights movement is a greater evil in my book.

I think this concern of yours is unfounded, Mitch. It sounds like you've been listening to too many Jerry Falwell sermons on tape.

I have a similar stand on the abortion issue in this sense, but in that case the uncompromising idelogues are on the side of anti-abortion. I can support a compromise reducing the time limit on legal abortions, but I will NEVER accept this ridiculous self-righteous ideological stand of no compromise and equating any abortion of any kind with murder.

Well, I can agree with you there.

[mitchellmckain]

I think this would be a good step, but the LGBT community won't be satisfied with it.

Why should they? It is a compromise. That is the point.

Frankly I think it would be very very difficult to argue against, making all their usual arguments that this is not what marriage is irrelevant and leave them no recourse but blatant religious legalism or homophobia.

I don't think fundamentalists would hesitate to object, Mitch. They already engage in blatant homophobia. North Carolina has just passed a constitutional ban on any sort of legally recognized civil union between same sex couples and I expect that will soon become a trend among the other "Red" states.

Well that is hardly surprising. North Carolina also passed a constitutional ban on interracial marriage, and the Supreme court had to intervene in 1967 to get rid of that. I don't understand that area of the country to be sure and I don' t really want to.

If nothing else, every culture that has/had such customs and same-sex contracts can provide a different name for another attempt at getting them legally recognized.

We say it isn't about language because the source of their motivation is not etymology.

Didn't say it was about etymology. But words and their meanings are important to people. More than they know.

After all it has been my repeated assertion that religion itself is 95% or more language, which frankly should get a lot of atheist nodding their heads if they weren't so preoccupied with pushing their hypocritically intolerant opinions that religious people are just a bunch of ignorant superstitious fools.

So, you're saying this because religion is just one way to view the universe and the language is not adequate to completely describe an idea that atheists also know to be true by a completely different set of linguistic tools? Am I even close?

Well I think there is considerable merit to that, but no that is not what I said. I actually just meant that it seems to me that atheists would be likely to agree with a 95% language assessment because they don't believe a lot of the words that religion uses refer to anything real.

Well that's interesting because we find ourselves in somewhat of an agreement. I disagree about the harm aspect,

Well then I guess you just haven't met the people who had their whole lives warped and distorted by this sort of thing. I have. I would have been one of them if I every really gave a damn what other people thought about me.

but I do consider the whole "genetic disposition" approach to be ultimately misguided, although at the specific juncture at which it was employed, it certainly had its uses. That time seems to have passed so I would like to see it retired. My whole problem with it is that since our constitutional rights are based on freedom and liberty, then why must I have any explanation for who I am or what I am? I am who I choose to be and that should be enough.

Yes I think this is a matter of personal freedom and the reasons why are frankly nobody's business but ones own. Talking like homosexuality is like some kind of affliction that cannot be helped is just an invitation to look for a cure to something that truth be told most would find insulting -- there was never any better evidence that this whole line of rhetoric was a red herring.

I have a friend in California who got their engineering degree and when he applied for a licence he was required to take this class run by the gay rights thought police. He made the mistake of voicing his opinion, JUST ONCE, that he didn't think that it was scientifically proven that homosexuality was genetic. And for daring to voice that opinion, which was actually a fact to tell the truth, he was denied his engineering license.

Mitch, I'm sorry, but that just sounds too outrageous to be true, even for Kalifornica. I'm not saying you aren't being honest, but maybe your "friend" wasn't totally honest with you. That just can't be right. And I'm not being sarcastic or argumentative here. I'm just profoundly confused, to the point that I can't believe that.

It happened. Not recently. Let see, its been more than ten years and it would have been in the LA area since that is where he was living with his wife and three children. I wouldn't be surprised this wasn't very widespread or it would have made a bigger stink to be sure. But why does this surprise you? Sounds like you need a few more illusions shattered. But ok, believe what you like. But you are not the only one who sounds like they don't want to be confused with the facts. Ideologues can do and have done the most outrageous things thinking that they are "saving the world". When you see enough of this sort of thing, it doesn't surprise you any more.

I will settle for any compromise at all, even the largely empty one of letting the opposition delude themselves that they can control the meaning of the word "marriage". Frankly, I just want the public perception that a compromise was reached, however fictional it may be, so that the gay rights community don't become the dictators of truth and law in the land. I really mean that LITERALLY. I DONT want the leaders of the gay rights movement to be moving into the administrative offices of the government to "lord it over us" in victory. THAT is a result that I will fight against even if it means that gay couples don't get what they want, need and admittedly should have by all rights. Sorry, but there is a lots of times we must choose the lesser of two evils in politics. And a state religion courtesy of the gay rights movement is a greater evil in my book.

I think this concern of yours is unfounded, Mitch. It sounds like you've been listening to too many Jerry Falwell sermons on tape.

Nope. Never heard him speak even once. I am just very familiar with the fact that pushing ones objectively unfounded beliefs on other people is NOT behavior that is exclusive to fundie Christians. People indulge in this complete delusion that people in "my group with my beliefs" don't do that sort of thing. Its bullshit, and however much you may not like to hear it, this is not a religious behavior -- it is a human behavior. I am not talking like it would be end of the world for goodness sake, I am just saying that it is counter to my interests and what I think is important.

[gary_s]

I think this would be a good step, but the LGBT community won't be satisfied with it.

Why should they? It is a compromise. That is the point.

Any good compromise usually includes some level of satisfaction on both sides. But I'm not going to defend LGBT on this because I happen to agree that this IS a good compromise. What I'm saying is that based on what I hear, I'm not sure this compromise would be acceptable to them. I could be completely wrong about this; it's not like I have my finger on the pulse of this issue, so I'm not going to argue about it.

Well that is hardly surprising. North Carolina also passed a constitutional ban on interracial marriage, and the Supreme court had to intervene in 1967 to get rid of that. I don't understand that area of the country to be sure and I don' t really want to.

Right, it isn't entirely surprising, but consider this, the prevailing political attitude of the Southeast are the bulk of Republican party right now. So, when you see N.C. do something, you are seeing the leading edge of the GOP.

Didn't say it was about etymology. But words and their meanings are important to people. More than they know.

If you say so; I disagree.

Well I think there is considerable merit to that, but no that is not what I said. I actually just meant that it seems to me that atheists would be likely to agree with a 95% language assessment because they don't believe a lot of the words that religion uses refer to anything real.

Interesting. I'm not sure if I agree with that or not; I'll have to think about it.

Well then I guess you just haven't met the people who had their whole lives warped and distorted by this sort of thing. I have. I would have been one of them if I every really gave a damn what other people thought about me.

No, I have no personal experience to draw upon here.

It happened. Not recently. Let see, its been more than ten years and it would have been in the LA area since that is where he was living with his wife and three children. I wouldn't be surprised this wasn't very widespread or it would have made a bigger stink to be sure. But why does this surprise you? Sounds like you need a few more illusions shattered. But ok, believe what you like. But you are not the only one who sounds like they don't want to be confused with the facts. Ideologues can do and have done the most outrageous things thinking that they are "saving the world". When you see enough of this sort of thing, it doesn't surprise you any more.

It surprises me because where I live, homosexuals are still considered deviant and have very little political power, if any. Had the story you mentioned gone down in Tennessee, the roles would be completely reversed. And frankly, I'm completely confused about what a person's views on homosexuality has to do with an engineering license. I wouldn't be nearly as surprised if you said he was applying for some kind of government position because I can see how a group with a lot of power would exercise that power (inappropriately in this case) to screen people who may some day be voting on laws. Again, that situation would be polar opposite here. Express support for LGBT and you are nearly unelectable in the South. In fact, expressing anything BUT a strong Christian faith and conservative values terminates most candidates, unless they happen to represent a highly Democratic and progressive district.

Nope. Never heard him speak even once. I am just very familiar with the fact that pushing ones objectively unfounded beliefs on other people is NOT behavior that is exclusive to fundie Christians. People indulge in this complete delusion that people in "my group with my beliefs" don't do that sort of thing. Its bullshit, and however much you may not like to hear it, this is not a religious behavior -- it is a human behavior. I am not talking like it would be end of the world for goodness sake, I am just saying that it is counter to my interests and what I think is important.

Well, I was just kidding about the Falwell comment, but your point is well taken. And I agree completely. I'm not ignorant to this problem, but because the political power here is 180 degrees from where you live, I get to experience domination from the other side. And yet I always cringe when people who represent my preferences make the same political blunders of over control. It seems that once power is attained, no one has the will to wield it fairly and that is just sad. One of my least favorite moves is the one both parties make; the re-arranging of district lines to improve the chances of a member of their party getting elected. They don't even try to cover it up. This is such a blatant misuse of power that I'm astonished the framers of the Constitution didn't anticipate this and make provisions to avoid it. I wish there as some equal and fair way to redraw district lines, but I'm at a loss on how to do it.

[mitchellmckain]

Right, it isn't entirely surprising, but consider this, the prevailing political attitude of the Southeast are the bulk of Republican party right now. So, when you see N.C. do something, you are seeing the leading edge of the GOP.

Seems to me that taking their cues from those who are consistently wrong in the long run is not going to work for the GOP in the long run. So this is going to be a temporary aberration - has to be.

Again, that situation would be polar opposite here. Express support for LGBT and you are nearly unelectable in the South.

Different issue entirely. One is the abuse of power and the other just democracy in action.

And I agree completely. I'm not ignorant to this problem, but because the political power here is 180 degrees from where you live, I get to experience domination from the other side. And yet I always cringe when people who represent my preferences make the same political blunders of over control. It seems that once power is attained, no one has the will to wield it fairly and that is just sad. One of my least favorite moves is the one both parties make; the re-arranging of district lines to improve the chances of a member of their party getting elected. They don't even try to cover it up. This is such a blatant misuse of power that I'm astonished the framers of the Constitution didn't anticipate this and make provisions to avoid it. I wish there as some equal and fair way to redraw district lines, but I'm at a loss on how to do it.

Not quite 180 degrees from where you live. I live in Utah which is a GOP state. And yes the GOP pulled the same jerrymandering crap here in Utah. We have a good congressional rep in our area, Democrat Jim Matheson, and they tried jerrymandering the districts to get him out of office. Frankly I think it just pissed people off, and his GOP opponents have been real morons so it didn't work. Now THAT is a good example of the abuse of power!

[mitchellmckain]

Since this is a discussion forum confronting Christians with atheists and not some political forum then we should bring the principle religious issue out into the open and talk about it.

Is homosexuality a sin?

Clearly many Christians believe so. How about me?

Well I don't know frankly and I think the Biblical evidence is pretty thin. But what I am sure about is that if so, heterosexuality is just as much of a sin as homosexuality. All this talk of preferences, looking at people like flavors of ice cream, is demeaning and theoretically has all the morality of canabalism. NO, I am not saying that all sex is a sin. Not at all. What I am basically saying is that it should be about love rather than using people to feed some kind of biological hunger. Let's remember that Jesus sets a very high standard for what is actually right and does not show approval for those who like to think they measure so much better than other people.

So the proper Christian answer to the self-righteous hypocrisy of the legalists, is not to say that there is no sin, but that we are ALL sinners and far too blind with the logs in our own eyes to be setting people apart and condemning them for the particular sin we choose to see in them.

So, in conclusion, not only does the religious belief have no legitimate bearing on the issue of same sex marriage in a free society, but for me it is irrelevant anyway because I don't see any difference one way or another.

[gary_s]

Seems to me that taking their cues from those who are consistently wrong in the long run is not going to work for the GOP in the long run. So this is going to be a temporary aberration - has to be.

Sounds like you are a supporter of the current ultra-conservative movement of the GOP.

Again, that situation would be polar opposite here. Express support for LGBT and you are nearly unelectable in the South.

Different issue entirely. One is the abuse of power and the other just democracy in action.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying the homosexuals in power in California aren't elected officials? If so, how did they come by their positions of power?

[gary_s]

To answer your question, Mitch, I don't look at people's choices through the lens of sin. If their actions are not hurtful to others and are motivated by good, then I'm fine with whatever people choose to do. I think there are a lot of things that theists do in the name of religion that is downright disgraceful and things that secularists do in the name of fairness that is just as outrageous.

[StaggerLee]

To Mitch's question about a biblical view of homosexuality, I agree that the waters are thin. And muddy. From a strictly Christian or New Testament perspective, we know Jesus doesn't speak directly on the issue at hand. His views can only be gleaned indirectly. That is, by recalling his endorsement of Old Testament jots and tittles. Or by considering him not only as the son of God, but as God Himself. There are powerful arguments for scriptural contradictions of these ideas, but they seem necessary components of a fundamentalist Christian view on homosexuality.

Now we turn to Jesus' view of the family, another element of the gay marriage debate. He seems at all turns to dismiss and disrespect his own family, his mother particularly, and advocate for a similar policy to be adopted by his followers. This is not really a negative critique on my part, I'm trying to tie in strictly Christian elements of Mitch's question about the sin of homosexuality with the question of marriage.

The most we see about marriage per se in the NT is from Paul. Taken at face value, he discourages marriage, and seems to regard it only as a last resort to prevent fornication.

Now, earlier I argued on marriage in strictly legal terms. But I'm more or less in agreement with Mitchell on the difficulty of finding a specific and explicit Christian condemnation. It could be missing for a reason: it's not on Jesus' radar at all.

[StaggerLee]

Clarification: what I mean by "on His radar," is not that he didn't have a view at all on homosexual relationships. Rather that it was not, to Him, an important factor in judging love, sin, or family.

[PlunderBunny]

Ahh! So many points being made in this thread; I feel I need some clarification before I get all gung-ho about anything.

As to the matter of nature versus nurture, I must ask:

To those of you who so readily state that it is not not nature, does that mean you believe sexual preference is a choice, or do you hold that it is something that becomes ingrained into us over time, so much so that we inevitably have no choice? Or do you hold something completely different?

Do you believe that heterosexuality is determined by nurture as well?

As to those arguing that the LGBT community should compromise, is that coming from a moral standpoint or a purely legal one?

[Keep The Reason]

My problem with the while "Jesus didn't say it" approach is that people simply use that vacuum to support their own biases in the first place. And, of course, a god who would not know this would be a major element of how his message came across is not much of a god... but is very much a flawed human being.

Well that is hardly surprising. North Carolina also passed a constitutional ban on interracial marriage, and the Supreme court had to intervene in 1967 to get rid of that. I don't understand that area of the country to be sure and I don' t really want to.

See, but this is another huge problem. If you want to know what an American theocracy will look like, it's this kind of stuff that NC did. Not wanting to understand "that area" (which is far larger than just NC) means ignoring the impact of christian thought on the area. That's where this bigotry finds its roots most nourished.

I've been in Atlanta for the past 4 days and many people I met happened to be from NC. They are by turns celebratory of and disgusted by this amendment, but the people celebrating it are out in the open and with nary a cloud in their bigoted little skies. Meanwhile, the people who find it disgusting repressive and horrifying are too afraid to make their disgust known because of the social cost to their jobs, homes, and perhaps even their safety.

We have to understand this part of the country, because if it grows large enough, it will dictate the social fabric across all parts of the country. Indeed, it already does.