Gay Rights

[Janx]

Back when Obama was first running for president, NPR had a journalist at one of them religious colleges named after some famous religious guy. They talked to a group of kids, all but one said they'd be voting for Bush. The one dissenter was confronted with "how can you vote for a Democrat, aren't you a Christian?" That's an almost exact quote, and it was a common chain of thinking among some.

What has happened to the Republican party is that it has merged with a demographic of "evangenlical christians" such that they see themselves as one and the same. Thus, their religious beliefs tend to not just inform decisions but dominate political objectives like forcing the hateful chapter in the old bible that Jesus didn't write on everybody else.

Thus, religion is very much meddling in government in Republican held territories.

That's too much politics, sorry about that.

I'll leave with this. I got to watch a speech by George Takei last month at Comicpalooza in Houston. He said he was fighting for gay rights for everybody and everybody's kids' and so on. The reason was simple. In a family where hate is learned. If a kid is born gay in that kind of family, it disrupts things. Nobody's happy, kid gets put out, the parents and siblings are suffering a loss as real as death. All over some artificial restriction people picked up from a moldy chapter in their holy book. Once folks accept gay people as simply people, families won't be upset or broken. That is a massive reduction in family trauma and sadness. Whether your straight or gay, that's a pretty massive social benefit, just by removing hate for the way somebody was born. George said it better, but he'd had a lot of practice explaining it.

 

[Umbran]

Basically, my question was third post deep, and everyone just read my post out of context.

No. Bullgrit. We didn't read it out of context. We didn't understand that the issue was semantic, rather than conceptual.

 

[trappedslider]

Apparently there are some folks afraid that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings, against their principles. I have noticed that no one has been correcting or contradicting that fear.

And I note that there is now at least a little precedence for this fear -- telling a private bakery that they must accept and fulfill a cake order for a gay wedding, against the owner's/baker's principles.

As much as I'm fine with gay marriage, I am not fine with forcing people to do something against their principles. Is it possible that churches can be forced to perform gay weddings? Why, or why not?
Bullgrit

I've seen that stuff including an op-ed in the Times saying that now's the time to end tax-exempt status for religious institutions. All it will take is one law suit to open that can up.

After discussing it with a number of friends both online and offline, and seeing the moves that The LDS church (Which I'm a member of) has made with regards to adoption, we think that it's only a matter of time before The Church decides officially decides that no one can have a wedding at local units and that they will do what they have done in Europe with Temples, which is only a sealing and not a wedding.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would agree, also, if someone said religion meddles with government, but how does religion skip the middle man and meddle in one's life? (Assuming one is not of that religion, and thereby tacitly agrees to abide by that religion.)

Agreed that it is usually through the implementation of the power of government- either by the votes of the faithful swaying things one way or the other, or by the actions of the faithful once in office. Religion rarely has enough power in the West to act without the fulcrum of government precisely because those governments are at least nominally secular.

But that isn't to say that it doesn't have massive power. Power that ripples.

Look at the Texas School Board: what they approve or disapprove helps drive the nationwide schoolbook market by sheer size of their slice of said market. If you actually look at their recommendations, you'll see some really disturbing trends.

In my home state of Louisiana, kids are being taught Intelligent Design in public schools. (God & courts willing, not for much longer.) That has serious educational and economic repercussions for the future of that state in particular, and the country in general.

Guess what US demographic is more likely to believe the position of climate science denial? The so-called "religious right"...and in numbers unheard of in other western nations.

 

[nerfherder]

But in what way does religion directly meddle in someone's life? I already said that I agree that religion wants to use government to meddle, as do many organizations, (e.g. Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, etc.). I would agree, also, if someone said religion meddles with government, but how does religion skip the middle man and meddle in one's life? (Assuming one is not of that religion, and thereby tacitly agrees to abide by that religion.)

Something you may not have considered - not all Western democracies have separation of Church and State. In the UK, 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops are appointed to sit in the House of Lords.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Actually, she, unless I've lost track of who said what.

Bullgrit

If we're talking about me, then, yes, "she" is correct.

Back on topic (ish), the difference between a door-to-door religion peddler and a Google ad is that the Google ad isn't invading my privacy (unless there's a virus or something attached to it) or interrupting my dinner.

 

[tomBitonti]

I've seen that stuff including an op-ed in the Times saying that now's the time to end tax-exempt status for religious institutions. All it will take is one law suit to open that can up.

After discussing it with a number of friends both online and offline, and seeing the moves that The LDS church (Which I'm a member of) has made with regards to adoption, we think that it's only a matter of time before The Church decides officially decides that no one can have a wedding at local units and that they will do what they have done in Europe with Temples, which is only a sealing and not a wedding.

I'm curious: What is a sealing, and how does it differ from a wedding? But, I'm not sure if you mean a wedding ceremony or the agreement that it represents (or, from a more religious view: the sacrament that it bestows).

Thx!

TomB

 

[JamesonCourage]

I find the idea that "love" won this legal argument a bit troublesome. This suggests that the judges decided based on emotion rather than legal reasoning. I'd prefer that this won because it is legally right and sound within our laws, instead of it won because someone's heart grew three sizes that day. Does this make me a bad person?

I wouldn't use the term "bad person" to describe you, but I know that there is no way in heck I'm supporting (or even obeying or observing) laws that I think are blatantly immoral. If I was in the military, there'd be no way I'd "just follow orders" and do what I was told -I'd go along as long as I didn't think it was wrong.

I get people not supporting the SSM decision because they think it's wrong. But, from where I'm sitting, if I need to make decisions based on the "law" or based on doing the right thing, I support illegally abandoning bad laws.

Morals > laws.

 

[trappedslider]

I'm curious: What is a sealing, and how does it differ from a wedding? But, I'm not sure if you mean a wedding ceremony or the agreement that it represents (or, from a more religious view: the sacrament that it bestows).

Thx!

TomB

First off, we believe that Families can be together forever. What this means is that by keeping The Lord's commandments that families can be together even after death. How this happens is done via being sealed together which means that they can be together both here on Earth and in Heaven.

In fact here's some links that can explain better than I can http://www.mormonwiki.com/Celestial_marriage
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormonism_and_Marriage

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Civilly disobeying an unjust or immoral law is not inherently a bad thing. You could even say it is a human right.

However, a problem arises when the law tries too hard to shield persons from the consequences of such disobedience before the fact. A law providing blanket protection against prosecution for disobeying a SCOTUS decision- such as is being proposed in several stated- is bad law on the face of it.