Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]
Posts
Also; women are property and marriage only exists to tie your family closer to the person giving you a dowry.
At best, the law uses precedent as a defense for enabling action, not restricting rights. The latter usually needs some kind of rational argument beyond, "um, tradition?"
If we let convention and tradition govern our decision making, we'd still be in the Dark Ages under Vatican rule, fighting off Spanish conquistadors after our stolen Mayan gold.
The old thread was more of a discussion of current events in gay rights progression. While I think that has a place here, too, I don't want us shying away from discussing the religious aspects of the opposition (or defense, for that matter), as like many have said, religion is at the heart of the opposition's entrenchment. It'd be kind of like having a civil rights thread in the 60s where we couldn't talk about the influence of media stereotypes on public opinion.
I agree entirely, but it's the uniting force of protected religious speech that allows these things to go on unabated.
Which, not really an issue I want to go too deep into, as many here, certainly myself and Thanatos, have had enough conversation on the topic, "Is religion evil, or is it used by evil people?" for several lifetimes.
Politics though, thats a different matter.
None of which have much rational basis or authoritative defense. Certainly not to the degree that would support restriction of someone's rights.
And if we're going down the "historical role of marriage" route, it wasn't all that long ago in America that marriage laws allowed for consanguinity and for what's now considered pedophilia.
I can't tell how much of that was joking, and how much was serious. Clarify please?
Also, traditional marriage does not allow divorce.
I don't really think most of the conservatives want to turn the clock back quite that far, but its an emotional appeal argument based on nothing rational, so don't expect consistency.
http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html
Nor do I think conservatives want to go even further back, back to the time when marriage was a completely secular event, back before the Catholic Church appropriated it as a religious ceremony.
Though, it's not like cherry-picking historical data for rhetorical purposes has ever been a problem for conservatives.
That's not the only reason that argument doesn't stand up. There are plenty of married couples who are perfectly capable of producing children, but do not want them.
I don't pretend to know or have proof, but that's one explanation I've heard from a number of academics.
Ok, the love leads to tragedy part was joking. Sometimes.
I know why they asked Jesus the question. But their motive in asking it in no way erases the impact of what Jesus said.
And I think it does speak to the separation of church and state.
When they ask Jesus whether they should pay taxes, he asks whose face is on the coin? They answer that it's Caesar's face on the coin, and Jesus give the "render unto Caesar..." reply.
Basically Jesus is acknowledging that the people have a contract with their earthly government, as well as with God. Caesar provides roads and aqueducts and law enforcement and all that, for which the people pay him taxes.
So too does the State of New York provide tax breaks, visitation rights, etc., to persons in exchange for them going through the process (I assume it involves fees and paperwork) of becoming civilly joined.
My conclusion is that the Church has no interest in civil marriage. They obviously have lots of interest vested in what constitutes a Church-recognized marriage. What I'm not seeing is the nexus that mandates qualifications of the latter dictate those of the former, or else face excommunication.
Exactly. As stated before, if support for secular unions outside of the Church (or fuck, just apathy for those unions) constitutes a trespass worthy of excommunication, that really opens up the floodgates to many more types of objectionable trespasses, doesn't it?
I mean, if saying that non-Catholics have the right to enter into non-Catholic unions is an actionable crime against one's own place in Catholicism, at that point what isn't?
I already know the Church's position is indefensible from an American legal point of view. I'm saying it's also indefensible from a Christian point of view, as evidenced by the word of God himself.
The Church claims to adhere to the latter.
I'm also saying the Church's position doesn't even adhere to Catholicism. Things like "Hate the sin, love the sinner" suggest that it's actions that should be condemned, not states of being. After all, are not all people sinners in Catholicism? Sodomy is an action, being married is a state of being.
The action of homosexual sodomy can be repented, just as surely as the acts of heterosexual sodomy or "wanton looks" can.
Let's say 2 gay men get civilly married. But they don't have sex, or even have sexy thoughts of each other. Have they committed a sin?
Heck, let's make it 2 straight men who get civilly married - for tax purposes, let's call it "friends with legal benefits". Have they committed a sin?
Srsly tho, I don't think it helps when the wealthy gay lawyer in Manhattan goes on record about how he had to get one of his lawyer friends to set up a will and power of attorney for him and his partner, instead of just getting married, and that it's just like the way impoverished disenfranchised blacks used to be firehosed for trying to eat at a white restaurant.
This is about as right as you're going to get. Civil marriage is just a piece of paper to God, that's it. The years of the laws that a nation followed being the same as what God wants them to follow died when Jesus fufilled the old coventant and ushered in an upgraded version thereof (I'm putting this in very loose terms, because that isn't the topic here). The binding commitment before God and fellow Christians, as well as to each other, is what matters. That is marriage 'to God', not anything that the state has to say.
Too often people try and equate the too, and that's partly what got us in this mess to begin with. In the end, what the state does with their marriage laws is no real concern for the church unless it impacts the church's views on marriage directly (I.E forcing the church to acknowlege same-sex marriages as having the approval of God, etc).
I kinda wish the state didn't actually have anything to do with marriage at all, and that it was just reduced to civil unions for everyone. The whole state of these laws are probably only this way because of years of people just putting state marriage and God's marriage in the same box, even though marriage is really more of a social or religious thing.
So, there is more point to a marriage than the legal contract issues made easy by the act. There is also the "two people making a serious commitment to live their lives together and support each other, forsaking all others" part. That's a pretty significant piece, and it's unrelated to the contract issues, or the childrearing.
In fact, "marriage is just a legal thing" contributes very much to the fragility of marriage and family. IMHO. Gays getting married does not contribute to that fragility, but arguments from gay marriage supporters that seek to diminish marriage in an effort to show why it shouldn't be a big deal are doing some harm.
I wish the argument was: "Marriage is important and serious, it's an expression of commitment unique in our culture, and we want that!" instead of "Marriage is just a bunch of legal crap rolled up together and a tax break on your 1040. Why do you care so much about it? U mad bro?"
I don't think that's what he's saying at all - he's being ambiguous. He doesn't say that the people have a contract with their government at all. He might be saying that he's not the one to answer whether the Jews should pay taxes to Rome, or he might be saying that the Jews owe nothing to Caesar, or that they should pay what the collectors say they owe, or that they should oppose corruption in taxation, or...
I think you're far off base trying to pin a specific meaning to Jesus's words when He was being intentionally ambiguous in order to screw with the questioners.
You'd rather have the sky be green and the grass be blue?
Huh.
I simply don't accept that this cannot be extended for other types of families, and I reject any religious characterization of marriage. Religious considerations are not relevant to the government, only the legal questions are ...
Am I missing something?
Yes, I would like it if the main argument for why gay folks should get married was that they felt marriage was super important, special, more momentous and meaningful than a sheaf of legal documents, and they ought not be denied it.
Crazy talk, I know. But if it's nothing more than a contract, why not just go get a fucking contract? This line of reasoning from gay marriage supporters seems to defeat itself.
Gay marriage supporters try to stand on legal ground, because that offers a shield against the current religious definitions that the "traditional marriage" crowd keeps using. The emotional appeals that you seem to prefer have a place, but neither strategy can actually win the day on its own. African Americans needed both in the 50s and 60s.
We want people to see that legally this is not a big deal, and at the same time tell people the stories about why gay people want to get married and humanize them so we can get to the point where a majority in this country is behind letting non-heterosexuals marry.
Love is obviously a factor and the real motivation behind the movement to give gay people the right to marry like hetero couples, but that alone doesn't win you a ballot initiative.
As I see it, the political agenda here is specifically to force a recognition onto society that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are no different from one another, and that what homosexuals build with each other is every bit a "marriage" like any other, even if various beliefs disagree. This is accomplished if marriage as it exists right now is redefined to include same-sex couples. This can't be accomplished very well if the government were to simply take a more practical, arbitrary, and rational stance on how it deals with life partnership contracts.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is not a restrained pragmatic approach that removes the issue, but rather a social and political triumph implemented via government decision and action on the issue. In other words, the goal is for the government to say definiteively that yes, the love gays feel for each other is just as special and meanginful as the love non-gays feel.
"How terrible it is that we're denied these fundamental rights that aren't very important and act just like the legal contract stuff we already have! We're going to march in the streets for the right to change the name of the set of legal protections we already get! We won't rest until our right to visit a JP instead of using legalzoom.com is recognized nationwide!!!"
I mean, wtf. Marriage obviously matters more than the contractual aspect would suggest, or else why fucking bother with all this struggle and strife? It's not exactly like burning down the village to save the village, but it's in the neighborhood.
Some of the pertinent difference is technical. Some of it semantic. Some of it cultural.
Would you rather invite your friends and family to your wedding? Or your legal document signing in front of a notary?
Exactly my point! That's why I wish the "it's just a contract, silly christians. y u mad bro?" argument would stop getting trotted out. It's clearly more than just a contract.
Of course, a gay couple could always have a ceremony of whatever form strikes them as appropriate today, and do the legal document signing in private that afternoon. Or invite the lawyer and the notary to the ceremony.
But marriage is more than even the ceremony and the contract. It's part of the social compact. There are cultural components that I'm not sure you can inherit by virtue of the State saying "you're married!" instead of "here is your list of legal rights". But baby steps. This stuff takes time to work its way into the cultural mind.
I just wish people would stop tearing down the institution in an effort to prove their desire to participate is no big deal.
While I'm never shy about jumping on the religion-is-evil train I admit that a lot of anti-homosexual sentiment among people is non-religious in nature (that is, religion is not the dominant factor).
I mean, even in a nation as secular as the Netherlands there are still quite some anti-gay feelings.
On the other hand, religion is still the main player here. The religious concept of sin and various other things about religion make it into the force that actively tries to stop gay marriage and restrict the rights of gay people. It is the main threat to equality. While vague dislike for homosexuality does exist it is generally of a kind that legislation one way or the other will have little effect. Not so for what religious groups try to achieve.
As it is unique to each individual and each subset of American culture that it exists in, it is possible for marriage to be "just a contract" for one couple and a very significant religious, moral, political, and contractual agreement for another couple. I don't see either interpretation as particularly invalid.
The assumption that civil unions and marriage are equal as a contract has always struck me as kind of adorably ignorant.
You don't need a notary or lawyers for a hetero marriage agreement, and your employment benefits don't need to be audited.
Marriage, in many ways, is the cultural shorthand for many, many things. Why do gays have to jump through extra-hoops?
I agree they shouldn't, but "marriage is more convenient" isn't much of an argument in favor either, particularly when "identical civil union bill + a buncha churches that will perform ceremonies is not good enough" is a very common argument in favor of full marriage recognition.