The Religious Right Gets Real on Marriage

Yes, but we don't then scream at others that they have to do what we can't or won't. Because that makes them hypocrites, and Jesus hated them much more than he hated gays. He had far more to say about hypocrites.

It's like the Aesop's fable about the mother crab who is yelling at her son to walk forward instead of sideways. The son asks her to show him and she falls flat on her face.

Its not about achieving goals, or even the goal of a perfect marriage. Its criticizing others for not reaching your goals, especially when you (general, not you specifically Grandpa) can not reach them. Not only are you imposing your standards on someone else, you are creating standards that not even you can live up to thereby setting them up to fail in your own mind.

Sure, Grandpastephen. But I don't recall setting any goals for others, and holding them accountable for failing to achieve it.

Yes, but we don't then scream at others that they have to do what we can't or won't. Because that makes them hypocrites,

I would say that when you Scream at the religious and say they have to except Gay Marriage, Your position, and you do not except their position, you are the same as them?

I would say that when you Scream at the religious and say they have to except Gay Marriage

Nobody is screaming that you have to accept gay marriage. If you don't want to marry a man then don't but do not stand in the way of others that choose to.

It is the hypocrisy that irritates us. You cannot use the "sanctity of marriage" defense against gay people because obviously not even religious people believe in the "sanctity of marriage".

It is just marriage and religious people, gay people and everyone else should have the right to screw it up equally.

I would say that when you Scream at the religious and say they have to except Gay Marriage, Your position, and you do not except their position, you are the same as them?

Hmmm . . . To a degree, perhaps. But if gays were allowed to marry, what effect would that have on either your marriage or your religious beliefs? Do you think it's an insult to Hindus in America that we omnivores are allowed to eat meat?

Being asked to "accept" same-sex marriage doesn't actually require either action or inaction on your part. On the other hand, prior to Lawrence vs. Texas, sodomy laws DID, in fact, legally impose chastity on individuals lacking significant attraction to members of the opposite sex.

Whether you value that difference or not is one matter, but it seems clear to me that there is a difference.

NOI you understand that when I say marriage and your say marriage we are not talking about the same thing?

Nobody is screaming that you have to accept gay marriage.

you also know that many call me a bigot and worse, for not being willing to be quite and let Gay Marriage pass. To me that is screaming and hypocritical.

thelyamhound

But if gays were allowed to marry, what effect would that have on either your marriage or your religious beliefs?

I understand that is not the point of this thread, if I understand it, it is the evangelicals are hypocrites and the rest of the world are not?

Oh, I'd say most people are hypocrites, in the sense that only people without ideals manage never to fall short of those ideals.

But I don't hold you to my ideals. This, I think, is where I differ most pointedly from evangelicals.

NOI you understand that when I say marriage and your say marriage we are not talking about the same thing?

Of course. I think that you believe that marriage is a religious joining of man and woman under the eyes of God or something to that effect. I assume the vows you made with your wife were under that premise and I am fine with that and respect your marriage.

I believe that marriage is the joining of two people that love each other and want to devote themselves to each and have that recognised by the government in the country they live in. Can you respect that?

you also know that many call me a bigot and worse, for not being willing to be quite and let Gay Marriage pass. To me that is screaming and hypocritical.

People call you a bigot because, by definition, you are.

• bigot: intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity,

The reason that we are not bigots and you are is because we tolerate your definitions and lifestyle choices and do not ask you to live your life the way we tell you to. You do not tolerate other peoples choices or lifestyles and very vocally oppose them.

NOI

The reason that we are not bigots and you are is because we tolerate your definitions and lifestyle choices. You do not.

No you do not tolerate my definition, you are insisting I deny it, and except yours. As far as your lifestyle choice, I have no problem with your choices as long as they are legal.

As far as your lifestyle choice, I have no problem with your choices as long as they are legal.

So if the law is changed to define marriage as being "between two people" instead of "between a man and a woman" you will then have no problem with it, since it will be legal.

No you do not tolerate my definition, you are insisting I deny it,

Not at all. You can live your life however you choose but you can not tell others how to live their lives without being a hypocritical bigot.

as they are legal

If people like you would stop voting for other people like you we could achieve equal rights for all.

None of us care what you do personally. You don't have to like gay people, you don't have be gay, you don't have to approve of it but you should not actively advocate against the rights of others based off your beliefs.

Dave

So if the law is changed to define marriage as being "between two people" instead of "between a man and a woman" you will then have no problem with it, since it will be legal.

Of course, I would hope thou that the change in the law came by a vote of the people

NOI

you don't have to approve of it but you should not actively advocate against the rights of others.

Again what I believe and think is right should not count because you disagree with it?

from #2.4

I would say that when you Scream at the religious and say they have to except Gay Marriage, Your position, and you do not except their position, you are the same as them?

Again what I believe and think is right should not count because you disagree with it?

Not because I disagree with it. Your beliefs shouldn't count because they deny equal rights for everyone in a country that is supposed to have equal right for everyone, even the ones that you think are icky.

You can live your life however you choose but you can not tell others how to live their lives without being a hypocritical bigot.

This is where your argument breaks down. If two people want to live together without being married, that's between the two of them.

Asking society to redefine marriage is, by definition, not just between two people. It affects society as a whole, for better or worse. Either people on both sides of the debate are hypocritical bigots, or no one is.

you don't have to approve of it but you should not actively advocate against the rights of others.

Again what I believe and think is right should not count because you disagree with it?

It can "count" all you want . . . for you and your family. But what you believe is right according to your subjective principles should have no bearing on the behavior of those who don't share those principles. You may, of course, express your disapproval, but that's quite a different thing from actively proscribing the behaviors of those who don't share your foundational assumptions.

Of course, I would hope thou that the change in the law came by a vote of the people

I would, too. I think the demographics say it's inevitable. If you look at the polls by age you'll see the support is overwhelming among younger people.

thelyamhound

but that's quite a different thing from actively proscribing the behaviors of those who don't share your foundational assumptions.

it is no different because I will be forced to except those behaviors by default, if I do not actively support my position, the only way for it to be fair is for both side to vote on what our society believes is a right.

You won't be forced to accept those behaviors. You'll be forced to tolerate them, but you can still share your prejudices with members of your ward, and indoctrinate your children and grandchildren (and great grandchildren) to the tune of your value system. You're not being asked either to act in a certain way or refrain from acting in a certain way.

Again, that's quite different from any imposition you might place by way of your religious beliefs on non-believers, whose actual freedom to act may be affected should your moral beliefs be codified as law.

Asking society to redefine marriage is, by definition, not just between two people. It affects society as a whole, for better or worse. Either people on both sides of the debate are hypocritical bigots, or no one is.

Sometimes definitions have to be changed to make sure we are guaranteeing equal rights for everyone.

If the definition of marriage was "between two people, except blacks" nobody would be arguing about changing an obviously bigoted definition.

The problem with gay marriage is that people are homophobic asshats and refuse to admit it. Instead the preach about the "sanctity of marriage" bs when it is obvious to all that there isn't really any "sanctity" at all.

#2.20

You won't be forced to accept those behaviors. You'll be forced to tolerate them,

Why can't we force you to tolerate our behaviors?

If the definition of marriage was "between two people, except blacks" nobody would be arguing about changing an obviously bigoted definition.

Fifty years ago in many states the definition was "between two people of the same race." The Supreme Court said that was unacceptable, and many people, like Grandpastephen, were appalled that they were forced to accept such behavior. We now consider it barbaric that there used to be such a restriction.

Why can't we force you to tolerate our behaviors?

You mean your behavior of denying equal rights to everyone?

Hrm, because we live in the United States of America.

Why can't we force you to tolerate our behaviors?

You don't have to force me; I tolerate them already. I leave you free to worship, breed, indoctrinate your offspring, marry, etc. as you see fit.

Then again, I am forced, at least in theory, by the fact that your right to behave according to your own conscience is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I don't have to accept your theological practices (which I find to be profoundly misguided), but I have to tolerate them. See how that works?

You seem to be dancing in circles--I attribute it to simplicity, rather than duplicity. Here's a question that I hope will be simple enough for you to address: WHAT action or actions do you feel you're being asked to do or cease doing by those who would suggest that marital rights should be extended to plural households or same-sex relationships?

Dave

like Grandpastephen, were appalled that they were forced to accept such behavior.

50 years ago I was ten, and I thought it was great that race was not an issue to stop marriage.

NOI, do you really mean this

You mean your behavior of denying equal rights to everyone?

Hrm, because we live in the United States of America.

if you do, then even thou you do not like my bigoted behavior, you will have to permit it

if you do, then even thou you do not like my bigoted behavior, you will have to permit it

Sure. We're not obligated to refrain from commenting on it, just as you aren't obligated to refrain from commenting on our "sins."

What we do NOT have to permit is ANY limitation on our behaviors that have no basis other than religious conviction.

WHAT action or actions do you feel you're being asked to do or cease doing by those who would suggest that marital rights should be extended to plural households or same-sex relationships?

I want to live in a society that does not approve Gay Marriage, I want to be able to act on my belief, you want me to stop that action, did I understand your question?

#2.28

Does that mean you want to take the vote away from the religious

f you do, then even thou you do not like my bigoted behavior, you will have to permit it

You are permitted to have backwards bigoted hypocrital views and I have the right to argue with you about them. Freedom of speech is a right for both of us equally.

And gay couples should be allowed to legally marry in the eyes of the law like you and your wife did. Equal rights for everyone.

want to live in a society that does not approve Gay Marriage, I want to be able to act on my belief, you want me to stop that action,

And I want a bag of potato chips, Bar-B-Q flavor.

You do not have the right to tell people in this country that they cannot enjoy the same rights that you enjoy just because your beliefs do not approve of them and their lifestyle.

Dave

like Grandpastephen, were appalled that they were forced to accept such behavior.

50 years ago I was ten, and I thought it was great that race was not an issue to stop marriage.

Perhaps I was unclear. Those who opposed interracial marriage at that time felt the same way about being forced to accept it that you feel about being forced to accept gay marriage.

I want to live in a society that does not approve Gay Marriage,

They wanted to live in a society that does not approve interracial marriage.

I say 5 - 10 years and same-sex marriage will be legal all over the US. It would be nice if it was sooner, but I'm being realistic. I agree with Dave-792879's post #2.17. The younger demographic will vote to allow equality for all consenting adults.

When I was young I would have supported Gay Marriage, then I grew older and my understanding grew to. That is normal in society, the young grow up.

You do not have the right to tell people in this country that they cannot enjoy the same rights that you enjoy just because your beliefs do not approve of them and their lifestyle.

You have the right to tell me what I can not do, as shown in the statement above. I should have the same rights that you do, so I also can tell people what right they can enjoy. Are we beating a dead horse?

When I was young I would have supported Gay Marriage, then I grew older and my understanding grew to. That is normal in society, the young grow up.

So when I get older I will want to oppose equal rights for everyone?

Just shoot me now.

I want to live in a society that does not approve Gay Marriage, I want to be able to act on my belief, you want me to stop that action, did I understand your question?

I want to live in a society that doesn't think Adam Sandler is funny. Living in the perfect world isn't anyone's right. Living in a world where you can live according to your conscience is. Therefore, even in a world where people could marry members of their own sex, your church would not be obligated to perform those ceremonies (just as synagogues aren't currently obligated to marry Jews to non-Jews), you will not be obligated to refrain from teaching your family that you believe such things are wrong, and you would not be obligated to marry someone of your own sex.

That is to say, other than the fact that the society in which you live will allow others to do something of which you disapprove, your own freedoms and capacities will remain unchanged.

I return, again, to the example of the Hindu. He or she may practice vegetarianism according to belief; this liberty, this action, is unaffected by the fact that others are allowed to eat meat (though I suppose this example could be challenged on the basis that no one's asking the cows what they think of the whole mess).

So . . . I'd have to say no, you didn't understand the question.

Does that mean you want to take the vote away from the religious

Not at all. Rather, I'd suggest that some freedoms shouldn't be up for vote from either side (including, say, the freedom of your church to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples).

Living in the perfect world isn't anyone's right. Living in a world where you can live according to your conscience is.

That is why we vote, to find what the conscience of society is.

I'd suggest that some freedoms shouldn't be up for vote from either side (including, say, the freedom of your church to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples).

I have no fear of the vote, if you want to vote against the freedom of my church to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, by all means do so.

When I was young I would have supported Gay Marriage, then I grew older and my understanding grew to. That is normal in society, the young grow up.

There's no reason, however, to believe that all will follow the same trajectory of growing up, or that there's a fixed set of positions that qualify as "mature."

For instance, when I was young, I was a Catholic, and believed in the same essentially anthropomorphic deity that you do. Now, I'm a pantheist and a Nichiren Buddhist, and I believe in something quite different.

Grandpastephen - You have the right to tell me what I can not do, as shown in the statement above. I should have the same rights that you do, so I also can tell people what right they can enjoy. Are we beating a dead horse?

I fail to see where anyone has stated what you cannot do. It seems that most people feel you have the right to do whatever you feel is correct. But those rights should be extended to all other people regardless if you agree or disagree. I still don't see how same-sex marriage hurts anyone.

That is why we vote, to find what the conscience of society is.

Rights are rights and should not be up for a popularity contest.

If you have the right to be married then everyone else in this country has the right to be married.

Younger people have grown up in a world where the gay people around them are open and uncloseted. They know gay couples and are not threatened by them. They support their friends. Despite Grandpastephen's expectations (hopes?), these people will not grow to disapprove of their friends as they age.

"That is why we vote, to find what the conscience of society is."

I didn't think right wingers could be communists

"I have no fear of the vote, if you want to vote against the freedom of my church to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, by all means do so."

I think here is the problem. The government can not, ever, tell your church that it has to operate in a certain way. Unconstitutional.

So they can not vote to impose a religion on someone. But you can't to them either. Your church will not be made to perform gay marriages. This will make it equal under the State.

That is why we vote, to find what the conscience of society is.

To a degree, yes. But there are matters that aren't subject to vote--including freedom of religion (which includes freedom of any religion, up to and including irreligion), freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, quartering of troops, etc.

I'd suggest that some freedoms shouldn't be up for vote from either side (including, say, the freedom of your church to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples).

I have no fear of the vote, if you want to vote against the freedom of my church to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, by all means do so.

Au contraire, my simple old man; such a vote would be nakedly unconstitutional.

The old red herring about your church being forced to perform gay marriages has been dispelled so many times. You can't even force a church to marry straight people they don't want to (like divorced people in a Catholic church). You certainly can't force them to marry gays. But, of course, there are plenty of other churches, and judges, and justices of the peace. Your church won't be missed.

CC

I think here is the problem. The government can not, ever, tell your church that it has to operate in a certain way. Unconstitutional

Our national Government and state governments already have a record of telling churches what to do.

thelyamhound

To a degree, yes. But there are matters that aren't subject to vote--including freedom of religion (which includes freedom of any religion, up to and including irreligion)

refer to my responce to CC above in this post.

Dave, the point of this thread is my personal right to act as I want to, and for you to act as you want to,

isakb2-1287066

Grandpa What makes you think you have the right to deny the pursuit of happiness to anyone for whatever reason?

When there pursuit of happiness interfers with my pursuit of happiness, who wins? Iis it the Govermnents job to see that everyone obtains their happiness?

And our Supreme Court has a record of telling the state and national levels that they can't. I would suggest you find examples, bring them here, and show how they relate to gay marriage.

And no Grandpa, the point of this thread is not about your personal right. You are trying to inhibit others' personal right. Your freedoms do not extend to taking away the freedom of others.

Their pursuit of happiness wins. Why? Because their pursuit doesn't involve controlling someone else

CC Check out the history of the LDS church, then come back and tell me that government will not pass Laws about religion.

I assume you are talking about the practice of polygamy? A practice which has been found to lead to higher rates of child and spousal abuse?

You can find that there are still people living in polygamous unions in the US.

The US state or federal government can not force your church to perform gay marriages. Period.

Check out the extermination order issued by the State of Missouri

Uhm.... that was about 170 years ago.... how old are you?

By that logic we could be worried that the US will implement slavery again. Be realistic.

Grandpastephen - When there pursuit of happiness interfers with my pursuit of happiness, who wins? Iis it the Govermnents job to see that everyone obtains their happiness?

How exactly is same-sex marriage interfering with your pursuit of happiness? Is someone going to force you to marry another man? I don't get it. Please elaborate.

SMJ Why do you not answer my question?

When their pursuit of happiness interferes with my pursuit of happiness, who wins? Is it the Governments job to see that everyone obtains their happiness?

When you answer mine I will answer yours, is that fair?

Grandpastephen: Our national Government and state governments already have a record of telling churches what to do.

And I submit that such acts were unconstitutional, at least so far as the activities of the church didn't interfere with the self-determination of non-members or subject members to any strictures they did not enter into voluntarily.

When there pursuit of happiness interfers with my pursuit of happiness, who wins?

In what way does others' pursuit of happiness interfere with your own?

Is it the Govermnents job to see that everyone obtains their happiness?

Not at all. It's the government's job not to interfere with anyone's pursuit thereof. They simply guarantee that no one's pursuit will be interfered with until/unless that pursuit directly infringes on another's person or property (and only person or property--the government should have no vested interests in people's feelings, beliefs, or delicate sensibilities).

CC Check out the history of the LDS church, then come back and tell me that government will not pass Laws about religion.

And again, I submit that such laws were unconstitutional.

Concerned Citizen: I assume you are talking about the practice of polygamy? A practice which has been found to lead to higher rates of child and spousal abuse?

I kind of disagree with you here. I believe that the practice of polygamy wouldn't lead to such if it were practiced above board. If you outlaw polygamy, only outlaws will have polygamy (to cop an argument from the right, usually applied to one of the few matters on which I DO agree with conservatives). I think that child and spousal abuse, underage brides, etc., are affects of prohibition, the same way that the drug trade as it currently exists is a direct result of drug prohibition.

CC this was your statement

And our Supreme Court has a record of telling the state and national levels that they can't. I would suggest you find examples, bring them here, and show how they relate to gay marriage.

I just wanted to show your statement was not 100% true.

Uhm.... that was about 170 years ago.... how old are you?

By that logic we could be worried that the US will implement slavery again. Be realistic.

Old enough to remember that history repeats itself, unless good people try to stop it.

There are many that fear that our government can turn us into slaves, and might be trying to do so now.

thelyamhound

And again, I submit that such laws were unconstitutional.

Did SCOTUS do anything about those laws, did the federal government do anything about the abuse the states carried out?

SMJ

When their pursuit of happiness interferes with my pursuit of happiness, who wins? Is it the Governments job to see that everyone obtains their happiness?

When you answer mine I will answer yours, is that fair?

I will save you some time and tell you what Grandpastephen means. It has literally taken me days to pry the information out of him.

Grandpastephen is very religious and believes that homosexuality is a sin or at the very least an abomination. He is a Christian and part of his belief systems tells him that it is his duty to spread Christianity and try to help others (sinners) find their way to God and religion.

He believes that approving of or not speaking out against homosexuality is against his belief system and it's duties and therefore causes him personal harm.

Does that basically sum it up Grandpastephen? If not please explain to all of us what "harm" is caused to you by allowing others to have equal rights.

Of course it does not make any sense to me because forbidding equality to others doesn't fit into the whole "do unto others" thing but I guess you can pick and choose what you want out of the bible to suit your motives.

Thanks not over it, I had to run away from the computer for about an hour so I didn't get a chance to respond.

Grandpastephen - If you need an answer from me, then I agree with post # 2.48 which the poster stated "Their pursuit of happiness wins. Why? Because their pursuit doesn't involve controlling someone else." I agree with this because their pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe on your rights. Your pursuit of happiness (if it is to not allow homosexuals equality), would infringe on their right, so they would trump you. Also, is not over it correct in his post # 2.59? If not, I await your answer, since you stated you would answer (in fairness) if I answered first.

not over it, I'm sorry, I meant to say in "her" post. Didn't mean to call you a dude.

CC this was your statement

And our Supreme Court has a record of telling the state and national levels that they can't. I would suggest you find examples, bring them here, and show how they relate to gay marriage.

I just wanted to show your statement was not 100% true.

Uhm.... that was about 170 years ago.... how old are you?By that logic we could be worried that the US will implement slavery again. Be realistic.

Old enough to remember that history repeats itself, unless good people try to stop it.

There are many that fear that our government can turn us into slaves, and might be trying to do so now.

Actually I was correct because I don't make a habit of using extreme words like "always" or "never". I never do that, ever.

So can we actually be clear on this? Your only fear is that your church will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples? Is that what you are worried about?

Or do you just not want homosexual unions to be permitted to exist at all?

NOI you are right, except one thing, I want to live in a moral society, this is what will make me happy, do I have a right to have what I want?

it does not make any sense to me because forbidding equality to others doesn't fit into the whole "do unto others" thing

I give anyone who wants the opportunity to vote on what our society calls rights, and I expect the same opportunity in return, do unto others as I want to be done by.

SMJ as said early on this post, yes NOI has most of it correct.

Their pursuit of happiness wins. Why? Because their pursuit doesn't involve controlling someone else." I agree with this because their pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe on your rights

It controls me, it infringes on my rights, although you will say I have not rights in this area for what ever reason you will want to make up.

How exactly is same-sex marriage interfering with your pursuit of happiness? Is someone going to force you to marry another man? I don't get it. Please elaborate.

SMJ copy of your question.

#1. I want to live in a society that is moral.

#2. I do not trust Religion haters, I believe they will use Gay Marriage, as a tool to attack Churches, it is happening in other part of the world at this time, and the people in this country are just as human as the people in the rest of the world.

#3 I believe if you and I examined what we believe Marriage is we would have two different meanings. I would be willing to support a Civil Union to give Gay people the financial rights and medical rights they want. I will not support adoption by Gay couples.

Thanks not over it, I had to run away from the computer for about an hour so I didn't get a chance to respond

I was just trying to save you some time. Granspasthephen doesn't like to state his views clearly and it takes a long time to piece together his motives. Even longer for me because religion baffles me from the get go.

I have had this conversation with him so many times that I can literally post for him in his absence. I have made no head way, I'm afraid we are all wasting our time. Oh well, I have nothing better to do, except work.

I'm sorry, I meant to say in "her" post. Didn't mean to call you a dude.

No worries. I get that a lot actually. I don't like to shop. :)

NOI you are right, except one thing, I want to live in a moral society, this is what will make me happy, do I have a right to have what I want?

You can want whatever you want. I still want potato chips.

Ooops ran out of time....to be continued......

CC #2.63

Actually I was correct because I don't make a habit of using extreme words like "always" or "never". I never do that, ever.

that is a rather extreme statement, I suspect you said it that way, on purpose to see if I would bite?

So can we actually be clear on this? Your only fear is that your church will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples? Is that what you are worried about?

refer to #2.64.

I give anyone who wants the opportunity to vote on what our society calls rights, and I expect the same opportunity in return, do unto others as I want to be done by.

I do not think that equal rights should be up to a vote. Equality is somethign that should be guaranteed even if it is unpopluar.

#1. I want to live in a society that is moral.

Your definition of morality is not the same as mine, agreed? So we can and will argue ad naseum but rights should not be up for debate. Citizens in a country where all men are created equal should be guaranteed equal rights regardless of what you believe is moral.

#2. I do not trust Religion haters, I believe they will use Gay Marriage, as a tool to attack Churches

I don't trust religious lovers. I also don't care about your church or what you do inside of it. If I were gay and had the right to get married I would not walk into your church where you obviously loathe me and my lifestyle to have my ceremony. I won't go in you r church for any reason.

I would be willing to support a Civil Union to give Gay people the financial rights and medical rights they want.

That's the same as saying the blacks can ride in the back of the bus. Separate but equal is not equal. The sanctity of "marriage" is a fallacy and merely your way of saying that you don't want gays to have rights equal to yours.

Grandpastephen: I want to live in a moral society, this is what will make me happy, do I have a right to have what I want?

Yes and no. No one guarantees that the people around you will abide by your codes. You have right of egress--the right to move to where people are more like you, and value the things you value. You have the right to raise your children with a certain set of values, and to participate in community activities and organizations that share those values. You have the express right to freely exercise religion, including the right to form prejudices based on the tenets of whatever religion you follow.

But because everyone else has those same rights, you/we are--at least in theory (if not always in practice)--barred from imposing such strictures on society at large. Freedom of religion includes freedom of ALL religion . . . and, by implication, freedom of irreligion.

I give anyone who wants the opportunity to vote on what our society calls rights, and I expect the same opportunity in return, do unto others as I want to be done by.

Rights don't really work that way. Our own founding documents refer to rights as "inalienable," and truths as "self-evident."

It controls me, it infringes on my rights, although you will say I have not rights in this area for what ever reason you will want to make up.

How so? What will you have to DO or REFRAIN FROM DOING if marital benefits are expanded? That question will be repeated until you offer a coherent answer. You can continue to consider as sinful anyone you see fit; your church can continue to perform marital ceremonies according to its own doctrines.

#1. I want to live in a society that is moral.

So do we all. But morals are subjectively apprehended. Society is not only impotent to guarantee that everyone will share your moral concerns, but is expressly barred BY THE CONSTITUTION from establishing a preference for one set of moral (as opposed to ethical) principles over another.

#2. I do not trust Religion haters, I believe they will use Gay Marriage, as a tool to attack Churches, it is happening in other part of the world at this time, and the people in this country are just as human as the people in the rest of the world.

I'm a Nichiren Buddhist and a pantheist; I'm inclined to think this allows me some escape from the label of "religion hater." Nevertheless, I support the extension of marital benefits (so far as they are to exist) to same-sex couples and plural households. So we have at least one example of an individual who supports these policies with a clear interest in maintaining freedom for religious institutions.

#3 I believe if you and I examined what we believe Marriage is we would have two different meanings.

Perhaps. Nonetheless, my Mormon in-laws have never questioned the legitimacy of our marriage.

I would be willing to support a Civil Union to give Gay people the financial rights and medical rights they want.

There's more to marriage than financial and medical rights (though those are very important). There's also the matter of immigration rights (if one partner isn't a U.S. citizen) and spousal privilege (the right not to testify against the spouse, as the marital unit is treated legally as a single entity; it essentially invokes the right not to testify against oneself, or the 5th Amendment).

I will not support adoption by Gay couples.

That boat's already sailed; it's legal in most states.

Rights don't really work that way. Our own founding documents refer to rights as "inalienable," and truths as "self-evident."

There are inalienable rights, I have the right to believe what I want, I have a right to pursue happiness, these right I have on my own no one helps me have them,

Civil rights are granted by the government, and can be taken away by the government, Marriage is not an inalienable right.

There are inalienable rights, I have the right to believe what I want, I have a right to pursue happiness, these right I have on my own no one helps me have them,

Civil rights are granted by the government, and can be taken away by the government, Marriage is not an inalienable right.

And if the pursuit of happiness includes the declaration of a lifelong commitment to a partner (or partners) with whom one wishes to build a household? On what basis would the state recommend that all such relationships are not to be treated equally?

I'd be happy to eliminate civic marriage altogether, if that option suits you; then gay Buddhists could have Buddhist weddings, gay secularists could have their own commitment ceremonies, and gay Mormons and Catholics would wake up and go, "Wait a minute . .. This church doesn't want me!," and they'll make a choice they should have made years ago--whether they truly believe in that faith construct, or whether they truly believe that they have a right to pursue happiness as homosexual individuals.

If we insist on a civic marital construct, I say we make ALL marriages civil unions.

If we don't go that route--if we're to continue to offer benefits to married couples, and if we're to insist on calling that civic contract marriage--that contract should be available to those who wish to avail themselves of it, there being no compelling civic interest to the contrary.

On what basis would the state recommend that all such relationships are not to be treated equally?

on the basis that it is a civil right and needs to be voted on, even if that vote is only the vote of the judges of the SCOTUS.

If we insist on a civic marital construct, I say we make ALL marriages civil unions.

If we don't go that route--if we're to continue to offer benefits to married couples, and if we're to insist on calling that civic contract marriage--that contract should be available to those who wish to avail themselves of it, there being no compelling civic interest to the contrary.

I have no problem with this country voting on those ideas.

Was marriage itself voted on? I suspect not--probably because civic marriage was already considered a given. That is to say, it was an assumed right, rather than a legislated one.

Grandpastephen - Both not over itand thelyamhound have basically answered your 3 points for me. I completely agree with their comments, so I won't reiterate what's already been said. But if you like I'm willing to you support you and fight against any law that would force churches to perform same-sex marriages. That would go against their religious freedoms. So that should take care of your 2nd point. As far as the 3rd point you brought up, I wholeheartedly agree that we would disagree with each other on what we believe marriage is. My wife and I (I'm a guy by the way) are married and we happily had a civil ceremony. I'm curious if you would even consider us married seeing as we didn't have a religious ceremony.

Was marriage itself voted on?

Is there a written law about Marriage, if so then someone some time voted on it?

There are inalienable rights, I have the right to believe what I want, I have a right to pursue happiness, these right I have on my own no one helps me have them,

If your happiness is dependent on keeping other people unhappy, then someone's happiness is going to have to lose. Again we have to look at the parallel issue of interracial marriage. Many, many people were unhappy with that Supreme Court decision. Does that mean, in order to preserve the happiness of the anti-miscegenationists, the Lovings should have been denied the right to marry?

Is there a written law about Marriage, if so then someone some time voted on it?

There is written law on discrimination.

That means whatever an old, white, Christian, heterosexual man can do, so can everyone else, including riding in the front of the bus and getting married to the person they love.

Dave

If your happiness is dependent on keeping other people unhappy, then someone's happiness is going to have to lose.

I would prefer it to be them, not me, you would prefer it to be me, not them. That is fair and understandable and very accurate.

Except that you have no right to demand others to be unhappy just to make you happy. Their happiness does not hurt you. Just ignore it. Look the other way. Stop worrying about how others live their lives.

If someone else's happiness makes you unhappy, too bad.

You see

If someone Else's happiness makes you unhappy, too bad.

Dave makes my point, he is a bad a bully as I am.

But Grandpastephen, a same-sex marriage won't hurt you in any way. You can still be just as happy in your life even if same-sex marriage is legal. Are you honestly trying to say that you would have an unhappy life if same-sex marriage was legal? Aren't there way more important things to worry about than if two men or two women want to be married? If that is all that is stopping you from having a happy life, then in a way I envy you. Must be nice that the biggest hardship you have to face is thinking about how others are living their lives. I say stop worrying about it, don't marry another man, and you can be just as happy as you are now.

SMJ I have no problem with two men living together, that does not make my unhappy

remember

#1. I want to live in a society that is moral.

#2. I do not trust Religion haters, I believe they will use Gay Marriage, as a tool to attack Churches, it is happening in other part of the world at this time, and the people in this country are just as human as the people in the rest of the world.

#3 I believe if you and I examined what we believe Marriage is we would have two different meanings. I would be willing to support a Civil Union to give Gay people the financial rights and medical rights they want. I will not support adoption by Gay couples.

Tellingly (perhaps), you never responded to my rejoinders to these three points.

"#1. I want to live in a society that is moral."

So do we all. But morals are subjectively apprehended. Society is not only impotent to guarantee that everyone will share your moral concerns, but is expressly barred BY THE CONSTITUTION from establishing a preference for one set of moral (as opposed to ethical) principles over another.

"#2. I do not trust Religion haters, I believe they will use Gay Marriage, as a tool to attack Churches, it is happening in other part of the world at this time, and the people in this country are just as human as the people in the rest of the world."

I'm a Nichiren Buddhist and a pantheist; I'm inclined to think this allows me some escape from the label of "religion hater." Nevertheless, I support the extension of marital benefits (so far as they are to exist) to same-sex couples and plural households. So we have at least one example of an individual who supports these policies with a clear interest in maintaining freedom for religious institutions.

"#3 I believe if you and I examined what we believe Marriage is we would have two different meanings."

Perhaps. Nonetheless, my Mormon in-laws have never questioned the legitimacy of our marriage.

"I would be willing to support a Civil Union to give Gay people the financial rights and medical rights they want."

There's more to marriage than financial and medical rights (though those are very important). There's also the matter of immigration rights (if one partner isn't a U.S. citizen) and spousal privilege (the right not to testify against the spouse, as the marital unit is treated legally as a single entity; it essentially invokes the right not to testify against oneself, or the 5th Amendment).

"I will not support adoption by Gay couples."

That boat's already sailed; it's legal in most states.

You see

If someone Else's happiness makes you unhappy, too bad.

Dave makes my point, he is a bad a bully as I am.

I disagree.

Some people are unhappy that blacks are allowed to ride in the same busses and swim in the same pools as them. Some are unhappy that Jews are allowed to belong to the same clubs as them. Do they have a right to ask that we support their version of happiness? No, because their happiness is not reasonable. Blacks and Jews do not, by their presence, cause them unhappiness. They choose to be unhappy at the rights of others. I do not see that Grandpastephen's unhappiness at the rights of homosexuals is different in any way.

Some people are unhappy that blacks are allowed to ride in the same busses and swim in the same pools as them. Some are unhappy that Jews are allowed to belong to the same clubs as them. Do they have a right to ask that we support their version of happiness? No, because their happiness is not reasonable. Blacks and Jews do not, by their presence, cause them unhappiness. They choose to be unhappy at the rights of others

It would apear that the bullies that support the blacks and the Jew, which by the way, includes me, are bigger, meaner, and more numerous the those that dislike them. Real life is tough.

So you feel that bullying is OK in favor of some groups and against others? Or that the majority makes right?

Actually it was a joke Gramps. (referring to your response to my last one)

So you are saying that if there were more racists in this country, then it would be ok if they all got together and voted slavery back in? Because slavery would make them happy?

referring to 2.84 among others

Both Dave and CC

So you feel that bullying is OK in favor of some groups

So you are saying that if there were more racists in this country, then it would be ok if they all got together

of course it is "not okay" but it is what would really happen, look at the other countries in this world, today and through history, when there were more bad people than good did the bad say well be fair, no they took over, that can happen today to us, if we let it.

So if there are more bad people today who want to prevent gays from having rights, then that's the way it is. As the balance shifts, and there are more good people who believe in extending rights to everyone, then those rights will be granted. Good. We're headed in the right direction.

This is a free country you can define words any any you want

So if there are more bad people today who want to prevent gays from having rights

With that said, I think we agree, I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe?

if you want to vote against the freedom of my church to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, by all means do so.

It has never been about a church performing the marriage and it has nothing to do with the church except for your statement, Grandpastephen. There are already churches willing to perform the ceremony, yours isn't needed or wanted. That's a strawman argument. And I think you know it.

The chruch, some, what everyone to live by their doctrine, and so do you. The moral question you fail to observe is that not all believe in Christianity or for that matter religion as such. What you desire/want is for everyone to follow your belief structure. The religious right (evangelicals) are destroying Christianity. You need to only look at the numbers dropping off the church, especially among the younger set.

What the right can't figure out, both religious and political, is without the younger set you will not prosper.

The Church, some, what everyone to live by their doctrine, and so do you. The moral question you fail to observe is that not all believe in Christianity or for that matter religion as such. What you desire/want is for everyone to follow your belief structure. The religious right (evangelicals) are destroying Christianity. You need to only look at the numbers dropping off the church, especially among the younger set.

This is so much garbage, from #2.81

#1. I want to live in a society that is moral.

#2. I do not trust Religion haters, I believe they will use Gay Marriage, as a tool to attack Churches, it is happening in other part of the world at this time, and the people in this country are just as human as the people in the rest of the world.

#3 I believe if you and I examined what we believe Marriage is we would have two different meanings. I would be willing to support a Civil Union to give Gay people the financial rights and medical rights they want. I will not support adoption by Gay couples.

is there any thing in those iteams that indicates I want to force you to join a church?

what everyone to live by their doctrine, and so do you.

do you see me trying to pass a law requiring you to give 10% of your gross income to charity, do you see me trying to pass a law against divorce, fornication, adultery, where have I tried to force you to fast for one day a month.

Good lord, people; Gramps is a well known troll. This is 91 comments in reply to a troll - you are feeding a troll

It does not matter how many times or how many ways you try to explain reality to him he is just a troll and lacks the capacity to correct his errors

Gramps You are wrong, wrong, wrong. However - What happened to the LDS in the early 1800's was despicable. They were often tarred and feathered or rode out of town on a rail (yes they did those things) or LYNCHED or just plain murdered because of their religion. It was a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male supreme court that allowed these actions, allowed their religion to basically be made illegal (even when they found their own state they had to give up parts of their religion to become a state rather than a federally managed territory)

YES I know the history and it is pretty disgusting what was done. And NO you can not use this as an excuse to harm others; if anything the mormon church should be in the forefront to trying to get marriage equality just as Jews who had experienced directly or through relatives the horrors of Nazi Germany were at the forefront of the fight for Black equality - in fact Jewish "freedom fighters" were also lynched in the south.

Gramps you make Mormon look more like Moron - and, no I didn't miss the "i" at the end. The only reason you came here was to spread your HATE - if you did not hate you would not have made the effort. You claim "I want to live in a society that is moral." - HATE is not moral, harming others is not moral, taking rights from others is not moral, inflicting your views on others in this way is not moral; you are not moral.

All you do, by coming here is demonstrate just how much you HATE. 31 comments in this thread alone demonstrates the intensity of that HATE. This is a publicly viewable discussion, we all see that, the Hate, the intensity; the hypocrisy of someone in a religion that suffered turning around to make others suffer the same fate or worse. This is infantile, childish, spiteful and very very public. You do yourself great shame by coming here posting this HATE-filled garbage.

As I have asked before would you consider the fact that I feel I have a purpose here, to present my point of view to those who have not made up there mind, I am not trying to change you or dave or NOI or anyone, I have not pronounced any of you to be dammed in fact I personal believe there are those who support Gay Marriage that may be making God happier than me, if you do not believe me ask, I can explain. If you want me to stop responding all you need to do is to stop posting, I am very willing to go away and to stop trying to influence the reader, if you will also.

I don't think you have to worry about influence, Gramps.

Grandpastephen,

You keep bringing up "vote". There is one problem. Equality under the eyes of the law should not be subject to a vote, equality is for all not just the majority. The majority should not have the ability to vote away or vote to deny equal protection under the law and equal application of the the law in this country.

Quite often I see the argument to protect the "traditional marriage" from the evangelicals and others. I ask you to please define what this tradition is and tell me how far back it goes. Does it go back 10 years? 20? 50? 100? 200? Let's go back 600 years. At this point in history there were same-sex marriages being conducted throughout Europe, where my and probably your ancestors came from, with the same protections as a man-woman marriage. They were called affrèrement or brotherment. Just google same sex marriage 600 years and you will find the article on this historical research.

Marriage today looks little like marriages from the past. Preserve a tradition? I say, "What tradition?" Or better yet, "Which tradition?" Seems to me that the institution of marriage is far from being perfected and more than likely never will if history is any indication.

JaO - This is the subject of the thread

Let's do keep this seed to the point--why is there a gap between what conservative Christians say and do in their marriages? I'm not saying that this is true for all -- most have perfectly good marriages,

This is the subject for your question

You keep bringing up "vote". There is one problem. Equality under the eyes of the law should not be subject to a vote, equality is for all not just the majority. The majority should not have the ability to vote away or vote to deny equal protection under the law and equal application of the the law in this country.

to answer your question and to stay on topic is impossible, I am not sure why this thread is being limited to the subject of conservative Christian marriages, who want to talk about things that work. I agree with Angel most have perfectly good marriages. mine is over 37 years old.

So you won't answer my off topic question but nearly every other reply you have posted is off topic itself. My first paragraph was in response to you bringing up voting at least 4 times, which is off topic. This can only mean that you cannot refute my argument.

Secondly my second and third paragraphs was on topic discussing the evangelicals. Yet you totally disregard that. This must also mean you cannot refute what was said in these paragraphs.

Here is the final sentence from my previous post:

Seems to me that the institution of marriage is far from being perfected and more than likely never will if history is any indication.

What is off topic about this?

JaO I am not sure what you understand when you say "traditional marriage" To me marriage started when God married Adam and Eve, he married them forever. I do not think you will consider that traditional. If you are asking me what marriage is, it is for this life and the next.

Well, Eve was Adam's second wife so I guess getting remarried really is the traditional way to go

Sorry Grandpa, despite what you may have been taught and believe, Adam and Eve were never married, unless you mean by way of Eve being created from one of Adam's ribs thus being of the same flesh. I seriously doubt that we will be seeing anyone marrying their oposite sex clone anytime soon.

I am not sure what you understand when you say "traditional marriage"

I do not have an understanding as I feel it is undefinable. I am asking you and others that want to defend "traditional marriage" from homosexuals what they mean and how long this tradition has existed.

Sorry Grandpa, despite what you may have been taught and believe, Adam and Eve were never married,

Where you there, what makes you so sure they where not married? The topic here is what Conservative Christians Believe, there are at least a few C. C.'s the believe the way I do.

Assuming they were then it was very much an arranged marriage as was the tradition for many hundreds of years. Are you saying that is what we should go back to arranged marriages?

You cannot define your idea of a traditional marriage without using the Bible. The problem with that is not everyone is Christian nor do they have to be in this country.

Majority rules is only good if it does not infringed on the personal rights of the minority.

I am not trying to define traditional marriage, I am explaining what I believe about marriage, many do not consider me a conservative Christian, that is how I think about my self.

Majority rules is only good if it does not infringed on the personal rights of the minority.

I believe this is off topic?

What out everyone! Grandpastephen is the "topic police". Wonder how he got appointed to that position since most of his posts are off topic.

Eriq and Angel appointed me, eriq said I was a hater if I got off topic, eriq, him I don't listen to, to well, but, it is Angels thread, him I will listen to, so should you. You get Angel to change his rule, I will respond, I promise.

Eriq and Angel appointed me, eriq said I was a hater if I got off topic, eriq, him I don't listen to, to well, but, it is Angels thread, him I will listen to, so should you. You get Angel to change his rule, I will respond, I promise.

Good to see that you have an sense of humor Grandpastephen.

I mean no offense Angel but I thought newsvine was an open forum for discussion. I have yet to see a single discussion thread stay 100% on topic. It is very natural for a conversation to start with one topic and lead far afield to another. It happens all the time. In fact it can be fun and challenging to figure out how a conversation topic started with topic "a" and suddenly realize you are discussing topic "z".

It is only natural when the topic of discussion is "marriage and evangelicals" that it would lead to gay marriage, the Bible, and the bigoted views evangelicals hold towards gays and their civil rights. It is not like we are discussing unified string theory, or this weekends football games.

Just - newsvine is a forum but articles and seeds are not open forums; they are specifically to post (seed) and dioscuss news items or write "articles" about events - i.e. report newsworthy events.

Yes, viners often run off topic and those comments should be deleted to keep the conversation to the specific news item but most viners as seders / authors do not like to moderate or delete as much as we should

and, Frankly, "conservative christian" is an oxymoron; if one is conservative one is NOT christian, if one is christian one is NOT conservative -- these two are mutually exclusive

and, Frankly, "conservative christian" is an oxymoron; if one is conservative one is NOT christian, if one is christian one is NOT conservative -- these two are mutually exclusive

He wouldn't be liberal either. He wouldn't be on any political "side". We would probably consider him to be some kind of radical anarchist and be "forced" to put him to death.

I would actually tend to agree with Just an Obs though, some topics naturally relate to others and there's nothing wrong with a discussion that incorporates other issues. Though, its really the discretion of the seeder and he/she can decide how far the discussion can go.

eriq, good luck "staying on topic" with 100's of participants or one that lasts longer than a few minutes, I won't be making any bets on that.

I find it very interesting that the very same people who decry big federal govvernment are the very same that insist on having government enter our bedrooms.

Hi kvina! I agree. The inconsistency and hypocrisy is maddening.

I find it very interesting that even us heathen Atheist's are more successful at marriage than evangelicals.

Not over it and Kvina what do you attribute this to?

Dave I assume you are talking about divorce and comparing it to gay marriage(if not please elaborate).

If that is the case it seems you are saying that because divorce is a bigger threat(I agree BTW) that we should just allow gay marriage because it's not as big a threat. I hope you are just trying for a laugh because this is seriously flawed logic. All threats against marriage should be fought against.

Using your logic and using the dikes(not dykes!) in New orlens as a comparison, you would only support stopping up one dike or at least one at a time and ignore the rest.

Dave I assume you are talking about divorce and comparing it to gay marriage(if not please elaborate).

Not just divorce. Over a third of children are being born to mothers who don't get married at all. Heterosexuals in huge numbers are rejecting marriage entirely.

If that is the case it seems you are saying that because divorce is a bigger threat(I agree BTW) that we should just allow gay marriage because it's not as big a threat. I hope you are just trying for a laugh because this is seriously flawed logic. All threats against marriage should be fought against.

Maybe 4% of the population is gay, and maybe half of them want to marry (you can quibble about the numbers, but they're in that range). Meanwhile only a minority of heterosexuals are getting and staying married. Is it logical to you that the evangelicals devote the overwhelming majority of their effort to the 2%?

The overwhelming rejection of traditional lifelong marriage by heterosexuals widely affects the institution of marriage as a whole. It has never been plausibly claimed that allowing gays to marry would have any effect on straight marriage at all. Gays getting married do not threaten my marriage. How do they threaten yours?

Gays getting married do not threaten my marriage. How do they threaten yours?

My reason against gay marriage has nothing to do with regular marriage so it wouldn't apply.

So gay marriage is against your personal beliefs, bobthemad? Eating meat is against the personal beliefs of vegetarians so should they be allowed to force the omnivores of our society to conform to their beliefs.

Personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. No one has a right to force their beliefs upon another person nor try to influence legislation to promote their personal beliefs. Especially if those beliefs and legislation would infringe on the the freedoms and rights of those that do not subscribe to your views.

I am sure their is something about your lifestyle that I personally would find either offensive or in bad taste. Can I start legislation to prevent you from conducting your life in that manner if this action causes no harm to others just because I personally find it offensive?

My reason against gay marriage has nothing to do with regular marriage so it wouldn't apply.

I'm confused. That seems to contradict this:

If that is the case it seems you are saying that because divorce is a bigger threat(I agree BTW) that we should just allow gay marriage because it's not as big a threat. I hope you are just trying for a laugh because this is seriously flawed logic. All threats against marriage should be fought against.

So is gay marriage a threat to marriage or not?

Be careful Bob, you are letting them pull you off topic, they of course will not get called on it, but because you are conservative you will. Stay on topic, that topic being your marriage and its short comings.

Grandpastephen: I illustrated, down at 11.3, how these topics are inextricably entwined. Your failure to respond (indeed, anyone's failure to respond) says to me that my points essentially stand (or at least that there's no one here with the intellectual fortitude to meet them).

It's possible, I admit, that the reason you get "called," while liberals who didn't take the time to illustrate how these topics are related didn't, might be a matter of bias. Nonetheless, if assertions are to be made here at all, I don't think it's untoward to ask for or offer explanations of any given individual's views, or to ask for or offer explanations as to how those views relate to the topic at hand.

bobthemaid . . . er, mad (author's note: sorry, I just got an image of you in a little skirt with a featherduster): If that is the case it seems you are saying that because divorce is a bigger threat(I agree BTW) that we should just allow gay marriage because it's not as big a threat.

I can't speak to or for anyone else's assertions, but I'd suggest that the threat of divorce simply illustrates that marriage is, in and of itself, difficult. I agree that this doesn't necessarily speak to the matter of gay marriage, but I believe that for a different reason than you do. To my eye, divorce is a threat to any given marriage, but not to the institution itself; same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is no threat to marriage at all. Rather, it's just an extension of the institution that allows yet more people to be . . . well, threatened with the specter of divorce.

I hope you are just trying for a laugh because this is seriously flawed logic. All threats against marriage should be fought against.

Certainly . . . By friends and family, faith communities, etc. Addressing moral matters via law is always unwieldy (see the previous failures of alcohol prohibition, the ongoing failure of drug prohibition, and any of a number of nebulous proscriptions regarding adult entertainment).

Using your logic and using the dikes(not dykes!) in New orlens as a comparison, you would only support stopping up one dike or at least one at a time and ignore the rest.

The problem with that comparison, of course, is that the threat in that case is physical, empirical, measurable. There's some correlative evidence regarding higher crime rates among children from divorced families, but correlation isn't causation; what's more, that speaks not a whit to the matter of alternative marital arrangements like same-sex marriage or polygamy.

I think the reason, Angel_C, that this discussion keeps turning back to alternative marital arrangements is that it's the only place that Christians and non-Christians actually disagree. Most reasonable people would say that it's better for marriages to work, that marriage is a worthy social institution, and that, let's face it, marriage is friggin' hard. Yes, it's clear that belief in what I consider to be a fictional anthropomorphic deity does absolutely nothing to make marriage any easier; it's even reasonably illustrable that such belief can lead people into marriages for which they're not ready. What this all suggest to me is not that evangelicals are hypocrites, but humans. And what I would ask of these humans is that there are other people waiting in the wings to participate in this institution, people who may have some insight to offer as to how this thing does or doesn't work. I know for a fact that my own 13-year-long, more-or-less heterosexual marriage (;^)) has benefitted greatly from observation of the committed gay and polyamorous couples in our lives, couples who've stuck it out and built households despite having none of the legal benefits we enjoy.

Grandpastephen,

I refer you to post 2.96. Staying oon topic in an open discussion without the posts being pre-approved is impossible. Trying to be a "topic cop" will not work. If you want to get back to the topic then you have to direct it in that direction by addressing the topic in your own responses or just do not respond to off-topic posts, simple as that.

BTW- telling someone they are off-topic in itself is off topic.

Angel has asked that we stay off the topic of Gay Marriage, this is his thread, I am trying to put together an article of my own as Angel suggested, I think in the mean time that we honor his request.

And yet, it's not at all clear that the issues are separate. Fact: evangelicals are obsessed with stopping gay marriage. Fact: they don't seem to be having much luck addressing the problems with heterosexual marriage. Are these two facts unrelated?

Does it matter, should we not honor Angel request?

Well, if you're not supposed to discuss a possible explanation for the problem, then what's to discuss?

In other news, we'll have a discussion of the economy where taxes may not be discussed, and a discussion of presidential politics where no one may bring up Republicans or Democrats.

Angel has asked that we stay off the topic of Gay Marriage, this is his thread, I am trying to put together an article of my own as Angel suggested, I think in the mean time that we honor his request.

Angel has not specifically spoken to me about the matter. I'm inclined to think that he'd be willing to brook some discussion of said matter if it's well-integrated into the central thesis of the article. He's welcome to correct me.

If you put together an article of your own, I'll just copy and paste the myriad posts I've made here to which you've failed to respond. ;)

Thelyamhound I will welcome that.

LOL ... I love the off-topic discussion of being off-topic.

My reason to be against gay marriage is based off an understand of how harmful homosexuality is as a lifestyle. as such it's inappropriate for the government to do anything that would support or encourage that lifestyle ie. the ban of smoking ad's, so they don't outlaw smoking put they limit where and when and how you advertise. Similar issues to me.

I'm confused. That seems to contradict this:

comment 4.5 Not at all my one point was me explaining part of what think the other is to point out the issues with someone Else's comment. As far as Gay marriage hurting Marriage by point was just because divorce hurts marriage, more then what some people think gay marriage will, isn't a valid reason to stop trying to prevent gay marriage.

4.7 (The hound) as to your point that divorce is not a danger to marriage as an instiution I guess I should clarify what i mean. Of course divorce is always a threat to any-ones marriage, but he ease at which divorce can be used and the inception of no fault divorce are harming marriage. I would justify this by saying that when marriage was a socially forbidden option and legally more involved this encoraged people to one not rush into marriage because of the difficulty in ending a marriage. Two, it encouraged people to work there issues out and save there marriage. in summary because all peoples marriages are hard at times and because divorce has become so easy it's has weakened marriage as an institution. A further issue would be that as more and more people get divorce the importance of marriage is lost because people see it as just a temporary thing that usually ends poorly. If people view marriage and there marriage vows( or any promise really) as somthing not to be entered into lightly and would then value it more for themselfs and in others.

And for all of you going back forth about the topic of this seed i would point you to Angels comments in 9.16

Let's do keep this seed to the point--why is there a gap between what conservative Christians say and do in their marriages?

you will see my comment on that at 9.17 If you wish to engage me in further discusion about gay marriage I would love to on another seed you can message me or reply a link below other I think as far as my Gay marriage discussion on this seed I would have to bid you farewell!

Of course divorce is always a threat to any-ones marriage, but he ease at which divorce can be used and the inception of no fault divorce are harming marriage. I would justify this by saying that when marriage was a socially forbidden option and legally more involved this encoraged people to one not rush into marriage because of the difficulty in ending a marriage.

Perhaps, but I'd throw good money down that says a lot of what we'd now, correctly, call abusive marriages continued well past their just expiration dates as a result of that greater difficulty.

I agree that marriage should be more socially supported, and divorce more socially discouraged, but again, I think that responsibility belongs to families, friends, and communities; engineering morally desirable behavior by way of law is rarely a successful venture.

Perhaps, but I'd throw good money down that says a lot of what we'd now, correctly, call abusive marriages continued well past their just expiration dates as a result of that greater difficulty.

I agree, this is why people can't calling for a ban or some sort of other legal removal on divorce because i can see some cases we it is needed and needed quickly.

I agree that marriage should be more socially supported, and divorce more socially discouraged, but again, I think that responsibility belongs to families, friends, and communities; engineering morally desirable behavior by way of law is rarely a successful venture.

Well I don't quite agree with this I think when you have laws that support the community in changing the social standards together it would be the most effective why of improving things. Alone of course with out the community support would be a failure.

agree that marriage should be more socially supported, and divorce more socially discouraged, but again, I think that responsibility belongs to families, friends, and communities; engineering morally desirable behavior by way of law is rarely a successful venture

What would happen to our society if we did not try to engineer desirable behavior, we where engineering when we passed laws against murder, rape, the drug laws, when we set up the tax laws to support families with children, when we set up education with its local control, I would say looking at the history of this country it was a very successful venture.

we where engineering when we passed laws against murder, rape

Grandpastephen what do all these laws have in common? Their act has a victim.

drug laws

Thesee are to control substances that can be addictive and or deadly, and often supported by or facilitate other crimes

tax laws to support families with children,

Actually tax laws are for the benifit of society as a whole not just families.

With the exception of the first list the only "moral" laws that have been passed are those that do harm to others and these are true with any society regardless of religious belief or lack there of. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

I read my post 3 times, where did this

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

come from, did you think I was saying that? I do not see it in my post, and I am sure I do not believe it. Divorce is not a religious issue is it?

Wow, read what you want to read much. Where in my post did I claim that you made the "monopoly" statement. The "monopoly" statement was a natural sequitur to what I was discussing in my post which was a response to you stating that the laws were a result of "engineering morally desirable behavior".

Is it not true when someone speaks of "moral behavior" they are speaking of what they have been taught by their religion? part of the point in my post is that there are religious morals and societal morals and relgion does not have a monopoly on that "word". Quite often these "moral values" will overlap especially when the "moral value" references doing harm to another.

What would happen to our society if we did not try to engineer desirable behavior, we where engineering when we passed laws against murder, rape, the drug laws, when we set up the tax laws to support families with children, when we set up education with its local control, I would say looking at the history of this country it was a very successful venture.

As has already been noted, murder and rape have discernible victims; the harm to society can be measured in objective terms, generally by way of direct harm to non-consensual participants.

I maintain that drug laws, as currently enacted and enforced, are as ineffective as alcohol prohibition was, and for the same reasons.

I've no position on the matter of tax laws that support families. I would say, broadly, that I'm less concerned with incentives than I am with proscriptions.

Is there a victim in Divorce?

Is there a victim in Divorce?

Often yes, there are those who will suffer.

Is there a victim in Divorce?

In some cases, probably. Hell, there are victims in some marriages, in many business arrangements, in the audiences to Michael Bay movies; we need to narrow our focus a bit. I would say that, by a reasonably specific definition of the word, no, most divorces don't produce a verifiable victim, or at least produce no more of a victim than a bad marriage.

Even if it is only 1% of the divorces that result in a victim, (I believe that real number is much much higher) society has a responsibility to try to protect that victim, even if

engineering morally desirable behavior by way of law is rarely a successful venture.,

we have to try.

So even if only a small percentage of business ventures end up producing a victim, we should regulate business; since nearly every driver produces a victim at some point in his or her life, we should presumably not allow people to drive cars. And won't someone please think of Michael Bay's victims? They'll never get those brain cells back again!

The only "victims" I could imagine in a divorce would be children, and I'm not sure that merely having a bit of an uphill struggle counts as true victimhood. If so, then we should outlaw poverty immediately (because we see how well government does working against that).

Let's back away from that for a moment, so we can note that while marriage has certain objective--or, to be more precise, certain codified parameters--the nature of that institution is, for the most part, subjectively defined. In that sense, determining when a marriage has "failed," when it has become untenable, is something I don't really think a blunt, majoratarian instrument like law is well-equipped to manage.

we should presumably not allow people to drive cars.

I would say we regulate them by making them get a licence after they show they can drive?

But if we make that comparison, Gramps, what you're arguing is not that we should strictly regulate divorce, but that we should regulate marriage--insist that one show a certain "skill set" before marrying. Which is an interesting idea, but again, the question becomes: Whose standards? Because unlike driving, the consequences of ill-conceived marriages are not objectively measurable.

It also ignores the fact that divorce is only half the problem. The other half is the huge numbers of people who never bother to get married in the first place.

IMNSHO, society as a whole benefits when as many people as possible are in stable, long-term (preferably permanent) households. I don't know how you encourage more people to do this, but when you have a major religious movement devoting most of their energy to telling a small group of people not to do it they're certainly not helping any.

Gramps - And again you are very confused. "engineering morally desirable behavior" is pretty insane, it means forcing them to do as you say with no proof that this is a good idea; just that it is YOUR idea.

Let's suppose that you were a Satanist - would "engineering morally desirable behavior" from that viewpoint involve forcing people to live together with no chance of divorce? Would that create a "hell on earth" for some?

There are victims both ways.

And then look at "contract" marriage; a group of people "marry" to share assets (like a house), liabilities (like children / day care); and then you come in and want to inflict your perverse "engineering morally desirable behavior, force them to live how you believe they should.

Mind your own business

Eriq -

Mind your own business

The society I live in is my business.

#4.30 + #4.31 -

what you're arguing is not that we should strictly regulate divorce, but that we should regulate marriage--insist that one show a certain "skill set" before marrying.

I would have not problem with a class on marriage everyone would have to attend, a non partisan group with people from both sides could make it up. The same on a pre divorce counseling program, the councilor would have some say on who is at fault for the judges benefit, of course that would mean no more no fault divorce.

Mind your own business

The society I live in is my business.

NO; the entire society is not your business; this is yet another insane statement. Freedom of religion means that people must be free from yours to parctice theirs; you are demonstrating to all here a childish insane notion that you are God and everyone elses business is your business; and that you hate the constitution as well as other people's freedom of religion or their equal protection under the law.

Seek professional help, Grandpa Troll

I'm also wondering how we define "fault" in divorce. Open marriages aren't technically illegal (at least not in all states; some do have adultery laws). Can there be infidelity in an open marriage? What if a couple entered into an open marriage, then one decided to close it? Then, in theory, you could have a partner divorcing on the basis of infidelity after there'd been an agreement that both spouses could have other sexual partners. What about verbal, or even psychological abuse? A spouse who won't allow the other partner to work in his or her chosen field? That could be considered abusive by many, but not universally.

As always, I find the state to be a paltry machine for teasing out moral and philosophical nuances.

That would be the judges job, to find out what fair is, and find out the agreement that was in-place, we might not be able to be perfect, we should try to be as good as possible.

We should try to be as good as possible--on our own terms, within our families and communities, and for the reasons we find right and good. I do not believe that law can do that for us.

Laws are not for the Good, they are for the few that are left standing when the Good go to work.

But in that process, Grandpastephen, they can also inhibit the agencies of the good, robbing them of what I believe is a socially necessary right of self-determination. That's why we (ideally) limit law to identifying and punishing crimes of measurable, material consequence to non-participants and unwilling participants in the action at hand.

That way, the "good" can do what they will at or after work, even if what they do is "good" only by definitions other than yours.

That way, the "good" can do what they will at or after work, even if what they do is "good" only by definitions other than yours.

I suspect there will never be an agreement on what "GOOD" is, that is why I believe that the best way to decide, is to let all who care, vote on it, that way the greatest number will be in agreement with what the law does. Have I said this before?

Yes, and I've told you why I don't believe that cuts it. The minority is no more necessarily right than the minority is necessarily wrong. To prevent a tyranny of the middling and the bourgeois, as little as possible in the realm of human behavior should even be up for proscription.

as little as possible in the realm of human behavior should even be up for proscription.

I in fact agree with this, but when an issue is brought like up the issue of Divorce and what marriage should be, how do we resolve it? If you do not trust the people how can you trust a small part of that same people?

Just to make sure, I do not think you are saying this but

Let's just say that we should live by the beliefs we hold---

if your belief disagrees with the law, do we obey the law?

What would you have said to Rosa Parks, Gramps?

I would have said mam you may have my seat.

How very "generous" of you. And yet, you imply (correct me if I am wrong) in 4.45 that if there were enough "ungenerous" white folk on the bus then it would be wrong of her not to give up her seat.

How very "generous" of you. And yet, you imply (correct me if I am wrong) in 4.45 that if there were enough "ungenerous" white folk on the bus then it would be wrong of her not to give up her seat.

I do not think you read #4.45 correctly

if your belief disagrees with the law, do we obey the law?

I was asking Angel a quetion to clarify my understanding of her statement.

Fair enough, I read an implied "yes" in your question. Glad to see that I misread it.

no this is clearly not the case. Because gay marriage is a growing issue the opposition is also growing. The opposition to divorce is well establish and you just can't see it as well becauseit's now part of the norm. Be it sermons on Sunday,marital counseling, interventions on abuse, ETC is currently what is happening to stop divorce. These are more effective then trying to change laws.

With regards to gay marriage, Currently in most locations all we need to due is stop it's legal recognition in order to keep gay marriage in check.

You're kidding, right?

Doesn't ANYONE lead by example nowadays?? :-(

Yeah. It just doesn't make good news.

Married is a word which in the world of reality is a legal contractural state in order to assign an individual extended liability by someone else's debtor, assign assets or income subject to tax in probate, and a box you mark yourself in on income tax returns.

Old, white, heterosexual, Christian men think that they own the word marriage and that it can only pertain to them.

ps. When you post you should try to avoid using "bold" letters or all CAPS. Many think it is rude because they think you are screaming at them. Instead use "quotes" and italics for the poster you are referring to and regular letters for your own post. Space between their comments and yours. Since you are new you do not have all the "tools" available to you yet. It gets easier to quote others when you are "old" like me. :)

"#1. I want to live in a society that is moral." Does anybody really believe morality can be mandated?

no morality can not be mandated, but because stealing is against the law, areas where that law is enforced that seem to be less thief's

(1) Are 'haters' natural born or are they created in reaction to the intense craziness that surrounds the issue?

Does not matter if it is a genetic disposition or taught, it is a "choice" to act out.

(2) Could it be agreed that to make a person rise to attack mode, they first must have been provoked?

nope, all it takes is telling someone they can not have what they want, of course some might consider that provocation.

My meaning for marriage is union (which I believe my minister kept referring to through my wedding service).

My meaning is the beginning of an Eternal Family, so there is a difference.

There can never be too many loving and nurturing care-givers for our young.

Love is not enough to raise a child, children need discipline and example to develop to there greatest potential.

My meaning is the beginning of an Eternal Family, so there is a difference.

Then you ought to worry about the massive divorce rate among evangelical heterosexuals. Seems to me that's a much bigger threat to the Eternal Family than the relatively tiny handful of homosexuals.

Still the wrong target.

You see, Dave does not understand me, or what I meant, a real rush to judgment.

no morality can not be mandated, but because stealing is against the law, areas where that law is enforced that seem to be less thief's

But stealing is against the law for everyone including heterosexuals. See, even stealing in non-discriminative.

Does not matter if it is a genetic disposition or taught, it is a "choice" to act out.

Sometimes hatred is chosen to stand against oppression of the "moral" majority.

nope, all it takes is telling someone they can not have what they want, of course some might consider that provocation.

Of course that is provocation. What would you do if we told you that you couldn't get married?

Love is not enough to raise a child, children need discipline and example to develop to there greatest potential.

Gay people can offer love, discipline and be a good example to children in the same fashion as a heterosexual person.

NOI if you want to keep beating this poor horse that is fine by me.

Of course that is provocation. What would you do if we told you that you couldn't get married?

I guess I do not understand what provocation means in your language?

Gay people can offer love, discipline and be a good example to children in the same fashion as a heterosexual person.

Two gay men cannot set the example of a mature women for the son of daughter living with them. The same applies to two Gay women living together.

Agreed not over it, a gay couple can provide just as good of a household to raise a child in as a straight couple can. It's not like their children will "catch gay." It's not like having a cold.

Good families come from having supportive people around the child. It has nothing to do with which gender is there to help raise the child.

Grandpastephen - so based on your point: "Two gay men cannot set the example of a mature women for the son of daughter living with them. The same applies to two Gay women living together." Do you also believe that a single mother cannot raise her children if they have an absentee father?

The two gay men might have sisters, mothers, aunts, etc, etc for the child to have a female role model. It's not like two men would raise a child and bar that child from having contact with women.

NOI if you want to keep beating this poor horse that is fine by me.

Well at least until you see things my way.

I guess I do not understand what provocation means in your language?

Denying rights to others is provocation.

Two gay men cannot set the example of a mature women for the son of daughter living with them. The same applies to two Gay women living together.

Nonsense. Just because I am a woman does not make me an authority on mature women, whatever the hell that means. My kids have probably the most non-girl of a mother that ever existed. Fortunately I don't raise my kids in a cave and they are in contact with a lot of people that provide examples. Gender does not necessarily mean a thing.

Well at least until you see things my way.

I think the chance of that is the same as the chance of you seeing things my way.

I will come back latter, to beat this horse some more.

Thelopes, I miss your post, before I comment I want to think a little, if that is okay?

I guess I do not understand what provocation means in your language?

Let me put it this way. I never even considered being a Religion hater. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of what the point is in hating anything (except lima beans and that's a whole different story.) But I AM getting irritated; in fact I feel definite assault on my throat as the superior righteous try to shove inantiies down it. My distaste is growing and while there is always the choice to ignore the drivel, I could understand where some may be provoked to attack. It will be interesting to see the ultimate legislative result.

kvina - some of the religious stuff really used to get me irritated too, but there was someone that posted a comment that totally made sense to me. He said that whenever someone started going on and on about scripture and the bible, he just pictured the crazy cat lady from The Simpsons. Except instead of throwing cats, you picture the crazy lady screaming at you and throwing bibles at you. It totally made me laugh and now it's the first thing I picture when I meet someone who is ultra religious.

But I AM getting irritated; in fact I feel definite assault on my throat as the superior righteous try to shove inantiies down it.

Where have I said you have to change? Do you want me to go back and count the times I have been told I have to except what you want or I am a bigot, a troll, and some other bad words. All I want is the right to influence our society to think the way I do, which is the same right that I see you expressing now. Do we still want to beat this dead horse?

No Gramps, you demonstrate by your actions and words that you are a bigot, that you are a troll. It's not about accepting (note: it is accept not except which you keep using - minor grammar error I usually ignore and you are not alone in this) what others say or you are a bigot; you demonstrate that all on your own, you demonstrate the HATE just by being here whether anyone else comments or not

If you want to influence society to your way of thinking, write your own articles (I would actually like to see a good sourced article from you on the history of the LDS in the early 1800's, I might have missed some sources), as well as your views on marriage, open up several comments as introductions to specific arguments; and admit when proved wrong, logically (which you don't do); for example when someone points out that same sex marriage does not affect yours you either need to show how it does affect yours or close that ar4gument as proved false. This would be a positive step.

Coming here is a HATE, Bigoted, Trollish step - you are messing up someone else's seed with off topic and often childish tripe, ignoring when it is demonstrated that you are wrong.

You show others no respect here as well as in your personal philosophy

Eriq when you told me to leave your article did I leave, (the answer is yes) if the moderator of this article thinks I am being a troll I will leave, as for hate, no I do not hate, bigoted, yes I am bigoted, trollish, I do not think so, as I said, if the moderator thinks so, I will apologise and be gone.

Angel one difference i can see right of that bat is different value or need for marriage. I will use the other extreme atheism but of course others group fall into my comparison at different level just like every atheist see things differently as well. I would argue that for a evangelical, marriage is very import for civil as well as religious or moral reason. A majority of atheists i would argue only see it from a civil view point. Because marriage is a bigger issue to a EC(evangelical Christian) they will marry sooner then an atheist which means they are younger and less able to effectively problem solve or compromise. These things are vital to a lasting marriage. Also because marriage is needed to engage in sex you see a similar effect. These two hurt the number of long term first marriages. Second because marriage is a bigger deal to EC they also tend to remarry and divorce and remarry... The also hurts the successful marriage number.

For the record I not an EC so i can't claim any secret or hidden insight. so basically if i am way off please let me know, Thank!

thelyamhound was that satisfactory?

If you'll indulge me for just one post, Angel_C, I'll bring it back around to the center of the topic at hand while still addressing Grandpastephen's questions. I promise.

Here's the problem: When we talk about marriage we're talking about two things. Or rather, we're talking about two spheres of recognition (the socio-spiritual/communitarian and the civic/economic) of the same thing (an emotional/spiritual/contractual binding of multiple people into a household). This inevitably brings people of differing religious beliefs (including such differences as that between none and some) into conflict, as there are objective aspects to marriage (including, but not limited to, those economic and legal benefits endowed by the state) and some subjective benefits (emotional commitment, development of empathy, compromise) in which all people have a stake, while other niceties are truly specific to the beliefs and practices of certain groups (the will of deity, the sanctity of traditional definitions).

There are obviously moral duties to and within a marriage--and to and within marriage itself, as an institution. As Grandpastephen noted, failing to live up to one's own moral codes isn't exactly rare, and certainly doesn't negate either the moral codes or the belief system from which they're derived.

That is to say, I think it's dangerous and misguided to assume that the failure of many Christians to live up to those moral duties tied up in marriage--even the duties on which we can (more or less) universally agree--leaves them open to attack on the matter of marriage in general, their views on premarital sex, or their beliefs on the matter of marriage between people of the same sex or on plural marriage.

That is NOT to say that the matters are unrelated. I'd suggest that the failure of some Christians, as well as the failures of non-Christians, to maintain moral superiority on the matter of marriage only shows how marriage, like all of our social institutions (and, by extension, all of our moral and ethical reasonings), is an evolving construct, an ongoing negotiation between what we want for and of ourselves, what others want for and of us, and the various ways we fail to live up to either.

To hit some specific points (and hopefully illustrate something on the whole) . . .

The constitution barred religion not morals, the moral standard this country runs on was selected by our society when it passed laws, banning porn, prostitution, drugs, child abuse.

You're comparing some unlike things, even within the sentence. Child abuse doesn't require a "moral" judgment to justify the imposition of law on those who would engage in it; the consequences of such actions on an individual are readily demonstrable. Pornography, and drugs, even prostitution, can only be shown to have victims from an ideological standpoint. I'd actually hold that it's beyond the reach of government to regulate such things (or at least beyond the reach of federal government).

It's worth noting that laws against drug use weren't really in place at the inception of our nation. Laws come and go; we may disagree with some and not others. I believe, personally, that law has overstepped its bounds when it is interruptive to the moral self-determination of individuals (unless, of course, those individuals have interfered with the moral self-determination of others--say, by hurting, killing, or stealing from them, or by denying them housing, education, free exercise, etc.).

It supports morals when it set up the tax law to support charity, education, deductions for children.

There are arguments from both the right and the left against that sort of thing, but I won't join that chorus. I actually think that children should simply be treated as humans, and thus be subject to the standard deduction. But squeezing out pups is, as far as I'm concerned, a moral neutral. I think that tax laws that support charity are also morally neutral, but in a different way--the government only breaks moral neutrality if it dictates that certain kinds of charities are ineligible for tax breaks on moral grounds. As long as no distinction is made between, say, a straight charity and a gay one, a Hindu charity or an atheist one, a conservative charity or a liberal one, I see the right to deduct for charitable contribution not as a moral matter, but a redistributive one; it simply defers taxes on the basis of money reinjected into the community via other channels.

Alas, their rate of divorce and marital infidelity is just as high as everyone else's. The only difference is that their fall from "grace" is more spectacular because they portray themselves as "pillars of morality" when they are simply arrogant bigots.