God and Gay Marriage

Quote: FrGamble

So are you saying that marriage defined as between a man and a woman is inherently wrong or evil?

The thing about things that everyone knows is that no one talks much about them. Prior to the time when the case was made for same sex marriage, say the early 90s or so, you wouldn't have found many definitions of marriage being explicitly between one man and one woman, even in legal texts. Most of the time the phrase "two people" was used.

Of course the assumption, the thing everyone knew, was that of the "two people" one would be male and the other female.

There's ample reason for this. Marriage is a partnership of equals, and the law does not discriminate on gender. It used to, I know, in some times and some places. But not for the last forty years or so. There may yet exist some exceptions, but not as many as you'd think. For example, while it's far more common for a wife to receive spousal support after a divorce, it's not unheard of for the husband to do so. The way the law allows for this is by not stating gender specifically.

Seeing as there is no fundamental difference, in civil matters, between an opposite sex marriage and a same sex marriage, then, yes, keeping same sex couples out due to a definition is inherently evil, wrong, immoral and just plain mean.

Quote:

We can protect the rights of homosexuals in a loving and committed relationship and make them equal to a heterosexual marriage without changing the definition of the word marriage.

You've said you resented my use of "separate but equal" when pointing out that's what you're advocating. Yet you keep at it.

Shorn of details, do you know why the lead plaintiff in the Kennedy decision field suit? Because his husband died shortly after they were married, and the state of Ohio would not issue a death certificate indicating the deceased's civil status as "married."

What do you call someone in "civil union"? Joined? Hitched? Unioned? Civil-Unioned? Civilly-Joined?

Quote: FrGamble

It is the first freedom granted in First Amendment of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. This freedom is what makes the United States a secular country and provides the separation of Church and State. This was to limit government's power over religion and allow its citizens to practice and live out their faith freely without government influence. I still fail to see how providing equal protection under the law while respecting deeply held religious beliefs and traditions that go back loooong before the USA was a twinkle in anyone's eye is somehow trampling on other's equality?!?

That is exactly what is happening. All people have the right to marry , and deeply held religious beliefs are respected. They're just not allowed to infringe on other people's rights any more.

Quote: Nareed

Seeing as there is no fundamental difference, in civil matters, between an opposite sex marriage and a same sex marriage, then, yes, keeping same sex couples out due to a definition is inherently evil, wrong, immoral and just plain mean.

We seem to be at a stand still. You won't seem to recognize that there are real fundamental differences between men and women and yet they are equal. And I won't seem to tell you why the loving union of two men or two women is fundamentally different than a marriage of a man and a woman yet they are equal in the eyes of the state. Why don't you go first and acknowledge that men and women and different and equal. Then I will say that the combination of two different things creates something different than the combination of two things that are the same.

Quote:

What do you call someone in "civil union"? Joined? Hitched? Unioned? Civil-Unioned? Civilly-Joined?

How about saying he is his spouse or partner, the same we could do for a married couple?

Quote: Mosca

That is exactly what is happening. All people have the right to marry , and deeply held religious beliefs are respected.

All adults have the right to lovingly commit themselves to another person and for the state to recognize their relationship and grant it equal rights under the law. Where do you get this idea that all have the "right to marry"?

Quote:

They're just not allowed to infringe on other people's rights any more.

So it is just the right to religious freedom that is infringed on? Can't we figure out a way where no one has their rights infringed upon?

Quote: FrGamble

All adults have the right to lovingly commit themselves to another person and for the state to recognize their relationship and grant it equal rights under the law. Where do you get this idea that all have the "right to marry"?



So it is just the right to religious freedom that is infringed on? Can't we figure out a way where no one has their rights infringed upon?

I still don't understand what you think is wrong with using the word marry. And why using it infringes on your religion. Without that understanding, it seems like you are comparing how you feel versus depriving others of a right that has been determined to be constitutionally theirs.

Quote: FrGamble

We are not talking about denying services to any kind of people.

I assumed you were.

Quote:

If a gay couple wants a birthday cake or a Happy Retirement cake there is nothing wrong with that. What we are talking about is not supporting something that you don't believe in, you shouldn't be forced to do so just because you own a business.

Are you or are you not saying a baker is morally justified to refuse to make a cake for a same sex wedding? Would it matter if it were called a "civil union" instead?

Quote:

What would you do if your cause or stance wasn't so popular?

I'd do a Penny, perhaps reinforced with a note inside the box.

Tell me, do you know the difference between welcoming a customer to your store and making a customer welcome at your store?

Quote:

What would you do if you were a Jewish baker in Nazi Germany?

Worry about things much, much important than baking a cake.

Quote: Mosca

I still don't understand what you think is wrong with using the word marry. And why using it infringes on your religion.

I've been asking that since I started the
thread and FrG has yet to tell us. The
Church looks at marriage as a 'unique'
bond between a man and a woman.
Making marriage genderless is a major
slap in the face for some reason. I don't
see why, it just looks like a blip on the
screen to me.

Quote: FrGamble

You won't seem to recognize that there are real fundamental differences between men and women and yet they are equal.

There are fundamental differences between men and women. They are also equal morally and legally speaking.

Quote:

And I won't seem to tell you why the loving union of two men or two women is fundamentally different than a marriage of a man and a woman yet they are equal in the eyes of the state.

You haven't made the case.

Look, there are differences, yes. But there are no major, fundamental differences. Certainly not as regards civil law. For that matter, there are differences in marriages between Jews, Catholics, Methodists, etc, and within these groups depending on how observant they are. Yet there are no fundamental differences.

Quote: Nareed

We can get into details, too. Would it be ok for a Christian baker to refuse to provide a cake saying "Happy Birthday Johnny" if ordered by a same sex couple for their son's birthday party? If the baker fails to realize this until later on, does he have a right to demand the cake be returned?

This reminds me of a debate I was having with Beethoven9 before he was banished from the site. Beethoven was complaining that Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from presiding over the Hollingsworth v Perry trial because Walker himself is gay, and therefore biased. My rebuttal was: what if Walker was straight, but he had a gay child? Or a gay sibling? Or a gay parent, uncle, aunt, cousin, or best friend? The leading voice of LGBT tolerance in George W Bush's administration was Dick Cheney (!) and is it a coincidence that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian? (Karl Rove's dad was closeted gay, which only proves that Rove had even less integrity than Cheney.)

The only way the opponents of gay marriage will win this thing is if every LGBT person vanishes and we once again return to the pre-Stonewall world where LGBT people simply cease to exist (see: Iran). That sure would make gay marriage disappear, wouldn't it?

Quote: Mosca

I still don't understand what you think is wrong with using the word marry. And why using it infringes on your religion. Without that understanding, it seems like you are comparing how you feel versus depriving others of a right that has been determined to be constitutionally theirs.

Besides the very odd jealousy over the word "marriage," the real concerns I've read about are:

1) The need for employers to provide the same benefits to same sex married couples they offer to opposite sex married couples.

Some companies already offer this, even to unmarried couples (of either kind), which was roundly criticized and met with calls to boycott Apple and others. So they'd be unaffected. Others, I suppose, embrace this incredibly important part of Christianity which states one must NEVER provide ANYTHING to a same sex married couple.

These would be affected in states which include sexual orientation in employment non-discrimination laws. All companies would be affected if ever a federal non discrimination law includes sexual orientation. But even without this, I can see some same sex couples suing for equal treatment. I don't know how the law would resolve that. I do know companies are not necessarily required to offer benefits for spouses. So certainly a few would throw the baby out with the bathwater and stop giving spousal benefits at all, or simply close down or sell out.

2) The concern that any advocacy against same sex marriage or even homosexuality will be legally forbidden.

I fail to see how that could happen, Certainly some media have adopted policies like that, but they're entitled to do so as private businesses. No media company I'm aware of would allow their staff to promote, say, racism. But if any did, the government couldn't do a thing to stop them. The KKK is till in business. Sexism is tolerated, more or less, in some media outlets. And with the web still wide open, there is ample opportunity for assholes to advocate jackassery.

What will happen, soon, and in fact is happening, is what happened with racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc: people who advocate it will be shouted down, criticized, and overall made into social pariahs. That's free speech, too.