This is TOO much!

[ClimbingPanther]

Off White, I never have thought, at least from a Christian perspective, that racial and homosexual issues are equal philosophically. Ethnicity is an intrinsic trait, but homosexuality is an action/choice. Laws cannot be based on who you are, but on some level laws always govern what you do.

 

You make a really interesting point about re-naming marriage in secular society. Definitely outside-the-box thinking.

[tvashtarkatena]

and I don't think there's anyone who would argue that someone's basic convictions about right or wrong should play no role in shaping their political views or the policies that they support.

 

Agreed, but so far the arguments against public policy tolerant of homosexuality put forth by the religious right have been supported by their proponents quite directly by biblical, unambiguously religious references. Big difference.

 

There are many basic moral tenets, that against murder, for example, that may have come into being during pre-history, long before the establishment of religion. It's not hard to imagine that, from the standpoint of natural selection, such morality was a good idea for survival, then later incorporated into various religions later on. Is the prohibition against murder religiously based or not? Both? Hard to say. What can be said is that it's healthy for society to codify this particular prohibition. I would argue that the prohibition against gay marriage is not healthy for society because it violates one of our most basic legal and moral principles; that of equal protection. Condoning it not only denies the right to pursue happinesss that the rest of us enjoy; it also diminishes the rest of us because we allow it to continue.

 

IMHO, of course.

[tvashtarkatena]

but homosexuality is an action/choice.

 

That is a religious, not scientific conclusion. What we know scientifically to date is inconclusive, but certainly indicates that homosexuality has a significant genetic component, and thus is very analogous to race.

[E-rock]

 

The "separation of church and state" you refer to is Jefferson's position that there should not be [bold]neither state sanctioned religion[/bold] nor restrictions on its practice.

 

At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making.

 

Imposing specific religious beliefs on the population at large through legislation constitutes the same thing as establishing a state religion. The only difference is that you haven't openly state which religion it is in written law. Legislation of a set belief structure (codified in law) is exactly what the framers of the constitution were attempting to avoid.

[minx]

Off White, I never have thought, at least from a Christian perspective, that racial and homosexual issues are equal philosophically. Ethnicity is an intrinsic trait, but homosexuality is an action/choice. Laws cannot be based on who you are, but on some level laws always govern what you do.

 

You make a really interesting point about re-naming marriage in secular society. Definitely outside-the-box thinking.

 

panther, two things

 

1) i disagree with you about homosexuality being a choice. don't have time to look up old studies but it seems that homosexuality is a genetic thing

 

2) is this the first you've heard of people giving marriage a different title in a secular context? if so i find that frightening b/c the concept has been around a while. if you haven't heard of it clearly many of the religious side may not be listening to all the arguments and possible solutions either.

[ClimbingPanther]

from the standpoint of natural selection

I was waiting for someone to say that... What do you think natural selection has to say about homosexuality?

[minx]

from the standpoint of natural selection

I was waiting for someone to say that... What do you think natural selection has to say about homosexuality?

 

since it tends to reduce the population in over populated ecosystem, not much.

[ClimbingPanther]

seems that homosexuality is a genetic thing

I'd love to see the studies, 'cause I didn't think anyone has ever proved this yet. Just a theory some people would like to be true, I thought.

 

And I guess the news just hasn't covered re-naming marriage well enough for me to be exposed to the concept.

That's what discussions like this are all about though, right?

[E-rock]

I'd love to see the studies

 

Scientific information is freely available in internationally published, peer-reviewed journals. Look them up.

[jordop]

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by jordop

[minx]

Panther-- google it. the information is out there. it's more than a theory. i wouldn't say it lives up the standard of "fact" yet. there is plenty of scientific evidence that indicates that its not a choice.

 

i thought the concept had been fairly well covered by the media. in fact it adds to a certain measure of my frustration that there is a simple practical solution to the disagreement and people can't even get behind that. those that i know with deeply held religious beliefs feel that even a secular civil union is more than they can bear. even though it wouldn't provide any measure of religious sanction to the union, it's still not OK.

 

the thing i find funny with the genetic argument is that there are several species that exhibit homosexual as well as bi-sexual behaviour. it seems to be a normal, although less common behaviour in multiple species. why are we so freaked out about in humans.

[JayB]

and I don't think there's anyone who would argue that someone's basic convictions about right or wrong should play no role in shaping their political views or the policies that they support.

 

Agreed, but so far the arguments against public policy tolerant of homosexuality put forth by the religious right have been supported by their proponents quite directly by biblical, unambiguously religious references. Big difference.

 

There are many basic moral tenets, that against murder, for example, that may have come into being during pre-history, long before the establishment of religion. It's not hard to imagine that, from the standpoint of natural selection, such morality was a good idea for survival, then later incorporated into various religions later on. Is the prohibition against murder religiously based or not? Both? Hard to say. What can be said is that it's healthy for society to codify this particular prohibition. I would argue that the prohibition against gay marriage is not healthy for society because it violates one of our most basic legal and moral principles; that of equal protection. Condoning it not only denies the right to pursue happinesss that the rest of us enjoy; it also diminishes the rest of us because we allow it to continue.

 

IMHO, of course.

 

So by this logic:

 

Group A consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity religious moral framework.

 

Group B consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity secular moral framework.

 

The legislation that they support is the same, but their reasons for supporting the legislation are vastly different from one another. Advocacy by group B is acceptable, but advocacy by group A is not?

[tvashtarkatena]

Group A consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity religious moral framework.

 

Group B consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity secular moral framework.

 

The legislation that they support is the same, but their reasons for supporting the legislation are vastly different from one another. Advocacy by group B is acceptable, but advocacy by group A is not?

 

What is group B's 'explicitly secular moral framework', exactly?

[JayB]

Off White, I never have thought, at least from a Christian perspective, that racial and homosexual issues are equal philosophically. Ethnicity is an intrinsic trait, but homosexuality is an action/choice. Laws cannot be based on who you are, but on some level laws always govern what you do.

 

You make a really interesting point about re-naming marriage in secular society. Definitely outside-the-box thinking.

 

panther, two things

 

1) i disagree with you about homosexuality being a choice. don't have time to look up old studies but it seems that homosexuality is a genetic thing

 

2) is this the first you've heard of people giving marriage a different title in a secular context? if so i find that frightening b/c the concept has been around a while. if you haven't heard of it clearly many of the religious side may not be listening to all the arguments and possible solutions either.

 

I am as agnostic as they come and listen to NPR for like 11 hours a day at work, and I've never heard the solution framed like that before either. I've only ever heard of solutions that granted gay's civil unions, but reserved the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions. I've never heard of anyone proposing to eliminate the term "marriage" from legislation and replace it with civil unions for everyone before.

[Stefan]

The only “person” who can judge a sin in Christianity is God.

 

So when a Christian person claims that homosexuality is a sin, they are in fact acting like a “god” by their judgement, and this act of judgement violates the first commandment whereas it states “There shall be no other Gods before me.” Only God can make a judgement on sin.

[minx]

OK it's just me.

 

I didn't say that heterosexual folks couldn't/wouldn't use the term marriage in a legal/secular context. Just that there has been discussion of the use of the term "civil union". I didn't specify if it would only apply to homosexuals or not. Just that it has been proposed as an option for homosexual couples. I didn't say eliminate

[tvashtarkatena]

I've never heard of anyone proposing to eliminate the term "marriage" from legislation and replace it with civil unions for everyone before.

 

Sideshow issue. No one here actually believes that the term 'marriage' is going to be purged from the lexicon, legal or otherwise.

 

Perhaps we should discuss polygamy now.

[minx]

Group A consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity religious moral framework.

 

Group B consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity secular moral framework.

 

The legislation that they support is the same, but their reasons for supporting the legislation are vastly different from one another. Advocacy by group B is acceptable, but advocacy by group A is not?

 

What is group B's 'explicitly secular moral framework', exactly?

 

group B views gay pron and goes to strip clubs and violates the 4' rule.

[JayB]

Group A consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity religious moral framework.

 

Group B consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity secular moral framework.

 

The legislation that they support is the same, but their reasons for supporting the legislation are vastly different from one another. Advocacy by group B is acceptable, but advocacy by group A is not?

 

What is group B's 'explicitly secular moral framework', exactly?

 

Jungian psychotherapy. Randite Objectivism. Take your pick. The point of the example is that you seem to be of the opinion that its not the specific verbiage of the law that matters, but the motives of the people who support it. Ergo if the KKK came out in favor of affirmative action, the correct thing to do would be to oppose the legislation, no matter how it was constructed or what it's effect would be in practice.

[tvashtarkatena]

My wife and I are going to do our part by replacing the terms "my husband" and "my wife" with "the biatch".

[JayB]

I've never heard of anyone proposing to eliminate the term "marriage" from legislation and replace it with civil unions for everyone before.

 

Sideshow issue. No one here actually believes that the term 'marriage' is going to be purged from the lexicon, legal or otherwise.

 

Perhaps we should discuss polygamy now.

 

I thought that Off's point was that since the term marriage is loaded with both legal and moral/religious meanings, that it would be better to completely separate the two so that the state was only involved in the legal side via the civil union, and those that wanted to acquire the moral/spiritual sanction offered by a particular church or faith could feel free to do so if they wished.

[tanstaafl]

those that i know with deeply held religious beliefs feel that even a secular civil union is more than they can bear. even though it wouldn't provide any measure of religious sanction to the union, it's still not OK.

 

 

minx honey, untrue. You know me. I have deeply held religious beliefs and I'm in favor of...well, technically I'm really in favour of marriage but I'd settle for unions.

 

carry on everyone.

[minx]

those that i know with deeply held religious beliefs feel that even a secular civil union is more than they can bear. even though it wouldn't provide any measure of religious sanction to the union, it's still not OK.

 

 

minx honey, untrue. You know me. I have deeply held religious beliefs and I'm in favor of...well, technically I'm really in favour of marriage but I'd settle for unions.

 

carry on everyone.

 

i stand corrected! but you are a particularly unique individual

[minx]

I've never heard of anyone proposing to eliminate the term "marriage" from legislation and replace it with civil unions for everyone before.

 

Sideshow issue. No one here actually believes that the term 'marriage' is going to be purged from the lexicon, legal or otherwise.

 

Perhaps we should discuss polygamy now.

 

I thought that Off's point was that since the term marriage is loaded with both legal and moral/religious meanings, that it would be better to completely separate the two so that the state was only involved in the legal side via the civil union, and those that wanted to acquire the moral/spiritual sanction offered by a particular church or faith could feel free to do so if they wished.

 

i think that's what OW meant. i know it's how i feel and how i would put forth the concept in a legal sense if it were up to me.

 

h/e, that's not how i've heard it mentioned by the media at all. just the idea that instead of marriage, it could be called civil unions to provide legal standing to homosexual couples. i've never seen it presented as a replacement for marriage.

 

apparently even the concept of civil unions soley for homosexual couples is not familiar to some folks.

 

question for the homosexual/gay folks out there. which term do you prefer for use in semi-serious discussions?

[minx]

and perhaps i should ammend my comments earlier to "...deeply held christian beliefs."

 

(i don't know tanstaafl's religious affiliation)