A Compromise on "The Compromise"

[JoeyKnothead]

Many folks put forth a compromise whereby all legal unions of folks should be considered "civil unions".

This compromise has been rejected by a good bunch of folks, so I propose another'n...

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions". This would preserve the cultural and historical significance of the word marriage, while allowing others to offer some form of 'marriage'. Of course all rights and privileges would be the same under the legal term, and those folks who object to certain marriages would of course be allowed to continue to object within legal boundaries.

Is this proposal reasonable? Why or why not?

[Ragna]

<snip to here>

There are no good arguments for preventing homosexuals from marrying each other. Hateful and primitive religious dogma seems to be the main reason that people think otherwise, but it's not "God" being hateful - it's you.
<snip to end>

With all due respect, while I agree that there is little reason to deny gay couples the right to form relationships that have the legal and civil rights that heterosexual married people have, especially when those gay couples do not share the religious beliefs that do not recognize gay marriage as being valid before God, to categorically vilify all belief systems that you don't agree with as being hateful is not only not helping the conversation, it's you being guilty of the same thing you are accusing others of.

I know of one belief system, for instance, that absolutely believes that sex is wrong, period; when one joins that faith, one separates from one's spouse, and the sexes live entirely separately. True, there aren't a whole lot of Shakers left in the world, but 'hateful' isn't the word most people apply to them.

Many religions, too, consider that celibacy is the higher form of service to God--and when one is celibate, it doesn't much matter whether one is refraining from heterosexual or homosexual sex; celibate is celibate. Is that doctrine 'hateful?"

And I know several belief systems which allow for gay marriage, some Christian. So what? We're talking about government. When we say "gay marriage" here we are talking about legal rights, not about the religious rites. The churches can do whatever they want, but let everybody else too.

Then there are others whose basic doctrine involves the very nature of male/female relationships, and that ultimately, salvation involves a husband and wife as a unit, an eternal unit. With a doctrine like that, with an added understanding that when, for whatever reason, the man cannot find a wife, or a woman a husband, that this will be taken care of in God's own time, then how is that being discriminatory specifically against gays?

The thing is, it is NOT YOUR JOB, or that of the government, to enact judgments against religions and their beliefs. It is very much against the very fabric of the US nature to tell religions what they must believe, or how they must act in regard to those beliefs, if there is no physical harm done....and frankly, the only harm proposed here (with the compromise referred to in this thread) is that gays wouldn't have the right to force that change in behavior. All they would get is everything they claim they want, i.e; all the civil and legal rights the government offers currently married people AND the right to get married according to their own beliefs, as well.

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

Why are religious people so centric? Gay marriage claims nothing from religion, it's all in your imagination. What they ask for is recognison and equal civil and legal rights as people they are.

It seems to me inadmissible that a century ago gays were being killed (and in some parts of the world they still are) and now religions are like: "you can't tell me what I believe, but I can tell that's a sin and deny their rights because they are against my beliefs!" I'm not saying you are like this, but many religious people are. On the other hand, I've yet to see a gay couple: "Marry me in your church or you'll go to hell!"

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

There are no good arguments for preventing homosexuals from marrying each other. Hateful and primitive religious dogma seems to be the main reason that people think otherwise, but it's not "God" being hateful - it's you.
<snip to end>

With all due respect, while I agree that there is little reason to deny gay couples the right to form relationships that have the legal and civil rights that heterosexual married people have, especially when those gay couples do not share the religious beliefs that do not recognize gay marriage as being valid before God, to categorically vilify all belief systems that you don't agree with as being hateful is not only not helping the conversation, it's you being guilty of the same thing you are accusing others of.

I know of one belief system, for instance, that absolutely believes that sex is wrong, period; when one joins that faith, one separates from one's spouse, and the sexes live entirely separately. True, there aren't a whole lot of Shakers left in the world, but 'hateful' isn't the word most people apply to them.

Many religions, too, consider that celibacy is the higher form of service to God--and when one is celibate, it doesn't much matter whether one is refraining from heterosexual or homosexual sex; celibate is celibate. Is that doctrine 'hateful?"

And I know several belief systems which allow for gay marriage, some Christian. So what? We're talking about government. When we say "gay marriage" here we are talking about legal rights, not about the religious rites. The churches can do whatever they want, but let everybody else too.

You aren't talking about letting churches do what they want; you are talking about forcing churches to do what you want.

Then there are others whose basic doctrine involves the very nature of male/female relationships, and that ultimately, salvation involves a husband and wife as a unit, an eternal unit. With a doctrine like that, with an added understanding that when, for whatever reason, the man cannot find a wife, or a woman a husband, that this will be taken care of in God's own time, then how is that being discriminatory specifically against gays?

The thing is, it is NOT YOUR JOB, or that of the government, to enact judgments against religions and their beliefs. It is very much against the very fabric of the US nature to tell religions what they must believe, or how they must act in regard to those beliefs, if there is no physical harm done....and frankly, the only harm proposed here (with the compromise referred to in this thread) is that gays wouldn't have the right to force that change in behavior. All they would get is everything they claim they want, i.e; all the civil and legal rights the government offers currently married people AND the right to get married according to their own beliefs, as well.

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

Why are religious people so centric? Gay marriage claims nothing from religion, it's all in your imagination. What they ask for is recognison and equal civil and legal rights as people they are.

All they ask for is recognition. What does that mean, precisely? Evidently it means more than having the civil and legal rights AND to be allowed to marry according to their own beliefs. Since it, evidently, means more than that, please explain what exactly it does mean--and how that meaning "claims nothing from religion."

It seems to me inadmissible that a century ago gays were being killed (and in some parts of the world they still are) and now religions are like: "you can't tell me what I believe, but I can tell that's a sin and deny their rights because they are against my beliefs!" I'm not saying you are like this, but many religious people are. On the other hand, I've yet to see a gay couple: "Marry me in your church or you'll go to hell!"

Strawman.

First, the topic of this thread is a "compromise on the compromise'...that is, a criticism about an idea I put forward. That idea is this: separate the government legal/civil rights from the religious/moral/cultural aspect of marriage. Put all the legal rights under the term 'civil union.' That means that all who want those rights must enter into civil unions, heterosexual or homosexual; all are the same. The word 'marriage' would then have no legal standing or force--and would be handled by religions, belief systems and the couple involved. This way a couple could get a civil union and get married as well, or get one or the other--and that includes gays.

It also means that, in terms of religious faith and behavior, everybody is free to believe as they wish, and act upon those beliefs. No religion will be forced to recognize gay marriages if they don't want to, and religions that do want to are free to perform marriages for gays...and they will BE married according to their beliefs.

The thing is, what I am reading from you and others is that true equality in rights and marriage isn't sufficient. What you really want is to make everybody else agree with you by force of law. You want to mess with my first amendment rights, in other words.

By the way, I have never, not once, said anything about a fear of being forced to perform gay marriages. That probably won't happen. What WILL happen is that we might be forced to accept government sanctioned gay marriages AS marriages in the religious sense, so that we would have to allow gays to live together in married student housing at BYU, (for instance).

[Ragna]

churches can do whatever they want, but let everybody else too.

You aren't talking about letting churches do what they want; you are talking about forcing churches to do what you want.

What they have to do is to recognize it's a legal marriage, not a religious marriage, but they have to recognize they have the same civil rights.

It seems to me inadmissible that a century ago gays were being killed (and in some parts of the world they still are) and now religions are like: "you can't tell me what I believe, but I can tell that's a sin and deny their rights because they are against my beliefs!" I'm not saying you are like this, but many religious people are. On the other hand, I've yet to see a gay couple: "Marry me in your church or you'll go to hell!"

Strawman.

Strawman what? I've just responded to this:

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

It seems to me unfair and hypocritical that religious people victimize themselves when they are clearly the reason why gay marriage isn't already as legal as it should in many places.

First, the topic of this thread is a "compromise on the compromise'...that is, a criticism about an idea I put forward. That idea is this: separate the government legal/civil rights from the religious/moral/cultural aspect of marriage. Put all the legal rights under the term 'civil union.' That means that all who want those rights must enter into civil unions, heterosexual or homosexual; all are the same. The word 'marriage' would then have no legal standing or force--and would be handled by religions, belief systems and the couple involved. This way a couple could get a civil union and get married as well, or get one or the other--and that includes gays.

The OP said:

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions".

So legally you should recognize it as having all of a marriage's rights, whatever you call it and whatever you do in your religious rites is none of my concern, nor do I care sincerely.

It also means that, in terms of religious faith and behavior, everybody is free to believe as they wish, and act upon those beliefs. No religion will be forced to recognize gay marriages if they don't want to, and religions that do want to are free to perform marriages for gays...and they will BE married according to their beliefs.

Not religiously, but as a citizen you should accept it legally. None is ever talking about religious recognison. Strawman, is that it?

The thing is, what I am reading from you and others is that true equality in rights and marriage isn't sufficient. What you really want is to make everybody else agree with you by force of law. You want to mess with my first amendment rights, in other words.

You call it whatever you want, but legally they have the same rights as everyone. This is all they want. And about your First Amendment rights... well, I'm not a USA citizen. But, funny enough, isn't that the same rule that is violated everyday in the currency "In God we trust"?

By the way, I have never, not once, said anything about a fear of being forced to perform gay marriages. That probably won't happen. What WILL happen is that we might be forced to accept government sanctioned gay marriages AS marriages in the religious sense, so that we would have to allow gays to live together in married student housing at BYU, (for instance).

Then what was this referring to?

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

[dianaiad]

churches can do whatever they want, but let everybody else too.

You aren't talking about letting churches do what they want; you are talking about forcing churches to do what you want.

What they have to do is to recognize it's a legal marriage, not a religious marriage, but they have to recognize they have the same civil rights.

Yes, that's what I said. You want to force 'them' to recognize gay marraige as legal marriages--with everything that goes with that.

It seems to me inadmissible that a century ago gays were being killed (and in some parts of the world they still are) and now religions are like: "you can't tell me what I believe, but I can tell that's a sin and deny their rights because they are against my beliefs!" I'm not saying you are like this, but many religious people are. On the other hand, I've yet to see a gay couple: "Marry me in your church or you'll go to hell!"

Strawman.

Strawman what? I've just responded to this:

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

It seems to me unfair and hypocritical that religious people victimize themselves when they are clearly the reason why gay marriage isn't already as legal as it should in many places.
[/quote]

Gay marriage isn't legal in many places because western society and culture in general has never recognized marriage as being applicable to gays. There is a paper by Margaret Somerville, who presented her opinion regarding gay marrage to the 'Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights" in Canada who comes very close to how I feel about this:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

[First, the topic of this thread is a "compromise on the compromise'...that is, a criticism about an idea I put forward. That idea is this: separate the government legal/civil rights from the religious/moral/cultural aspect of marriage. Put all the legal rights under the term 'civil union.' That means that all who want those rights must enter into civil unions, heterosexual or homosexual; all are the same. The word 'marriage' would then have no legal standing or force--and would be handled by religions, belief systems and the couple involved. This way a couple could get a civil union and get married as well, or get one or the other--and that includes gays.

The OP said:

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions".

Yes...that was a direct response to my suggestion that the government use 'civil union' to describe the legal and civil rights given by the government to relationships, and let religion/culture/belief systems define "marriage'...that aspect of it that does not involve government granted rights and priviledges. He wasn't happy with the idea, and wanted to switch the names around.

So legally you should recognize it as having all of a marriage's rights, whatever you call it and whatever you do in your religious rites is none of my concern, nor do I care sincerely.

Obviously you do, since you insist that religions be forced to recognize gay marriages as marriages.

"]It also means that, in terms of religious faith and behavior, everybody is free to believe as they wish, and act upon those beliefs. No religion will be forced to recognize gay marriages if they don't want to, and religions that do want to are free to perform marriages for gays...and they will BE married according to their beliefs.

Not religiously, but as a citizen you should accept it legally. None is ever talking about religious recognison. Strawman, is that it?

That's precisely what IS being talked about; religions that don't want to recognize gay marriage as marriage. Nothing else. As a citizen of the USA, I have absolutely no problem with gays joining together in civil unions, and getting the same rights I have as a married woman. As a Mormon, however, my religious definition of 'marriage' simply cannot include gays. It simply can't. It has nothing to do with thinking that they are sinful, or awful people, or 'lesser..' and everything to do with what we believe marriage IS. That definition precludes same-sex relationships, within our beliefs.

The thing is, what I am reading from you and others is that true equality in rights and marriage isn't sufficient. What you really want is to make everybody else agree with you by force of law. You want to mess with my first amendment rights, in other words.

You call it whatever you want, but legally they have the same rights as everyone. This is all they want. And about your First Amendment rights... well, I'm not a USA citizen. But, funny enough, isn't that the same rule that is violated everyday in the currency "In God we trust"?

I call it what it is. Please don't switch arguments from "I'm not trying to make you do something you don't want' to "it's OK to make you change because I think your beliefs are wrong."

By the way, I have never, not once, said anything about a fear of being forced to perform gay marriages. That probably won't happen. What WILL happen is that we might be forced to accept government sanctioned gay marriages AS marriages in the religious sense, so that we would have to allow gays to live together in married student housing at BYU, (for instance).

Then what was this referring to?

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

The above; the forced recognition of gay marriage as marriage according to our definition. There's nothing there that refers to forcing us to actually perform weddings.

[Woland]

<snip to here>

There are no good arguments for preventing homosexuals from marrying each other. Hateful and primitive religious dogma seems to be the main reason that people think otherwise, but it's not "God" being hateful - it's you.
<snip to end>

With all due respect, while I agree that there is little reason to deny gay couples the right to form relationships that have the legal and civil rights that heterosexual married people have, especially when those gay couples do not share the religious beliefs that do not recognize gay marriage as being valid before God, to categorically vilify all belief systems that you don't agree with as being hateful is not only not helping the conversation, it's you being guilty of the same thing you are accusing others of.

Despising intolerance and prejudice is not the same thing as being intolerant or prejudiced.

Think about it.

I'm really tired of hearing the same bigoted nonsense again and again from people who virtually never change their dogmatically and hermetically closed minds, when it comes to something as simple as leaving people alone to love who and how they want, and to have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.

I don't think anything is made better by pretending that all views, no matter how much iniquity and suffering they have caused and cause to this day, deserve respect.

Imagine being the homosexual child of a family of Christian bigots who think that homosexuality is a "sin".

It's irrelevant "whether I agree with their belief system or not", it's a matter of putting an end to this bigoted nonsense.

What do you tell a racist when you want to refute his ignorant views?

Why do people seem to think that prejudiced views that can be said to come from a holy text should somehow be exempt from being treated the same as other such nefarious ideas?

I know of one belief system, for instance, that absolutely believes that sex is wrong, period; when one joins that faith, one separates from one's spouse, and the sexes live entirely separately. True, there aren't a whole lot of Shakers left in the world, but 'hateful' isn't the word most people apply to them.

I wouldn't apply any other expression to this than "completely delusional and dangerously repressive".

Being the child of people who think like this is likely to lead to some serious confusion, all because these people are gullible enough to believe that there's an invisible entity who made them with incredibly strong biological impulses, but who also wants them to repress these at all costs.

It's completely laughable, and I'd be laughing for days about this if it wasn't so sad that people will make themselves and others believe that you should repress normal biological impulses because of some ancient superstitious supernatural belief system.

Their ignorance no doubt has serious repercussions. Sexual desire in humans is not something that can so easily be willed away.

Thus, the COUNTLESS cases of child abuse by clergymen of various Abrahamic persuasions.

Many religions, too, consider that celibacy is the higher form of service to God--and when one is celibate, it doesn't much matter whether one is refraining from heterosexual or homosexual sex; celibate is celibate. Is that doctrine 'hateful?"

If you tell others that it's "objectively wrong" (i.e. "God" disapproves) to not be celibate and try to indoctrinate children with such ideas, then yes, it's EXTREMELY hateful, ignorant and nefarious. Those who keep their prejudiced views to themselves and don't try to restrain the rights of others on the basis that their magical tales imply that it's a good idea to do so will have no quarrel with me.

That's the parallel to homosexuals and marriage: tell your gay child that being gay is a sin, and that God hates sin, and you're guilty of a serious crime in my book - making others suffer and hate their very nature, ONLY because of your prejudices which are entirely based on the superstitious views of ancient ignorant humans.

All this "hate the sin and not the sinner" nonsense doesn't exonerate Christianity in the slightest from all the harm it's caused to people, making them feel guilty about themselves, petrifying their minds with inane tales of eternal torment and the like.

Then there are others whose basic doctrine involves the very nature of male/female relationships, and that ultimately, salvation involves a husband and wife as a unit, an eternal unit. With a doctrine like that, with an added understanding that when, for whatever reason, the man cannot find a wife, or a woman a husband, that this will be taken care of in God's own time, then how is that being discriminatory specifically against gays?

Did I imply that it was? Are these people opposed to equal rights for homosexuals?

I'm not sure what you were trying to get at here.

The thing is, it is NOT YOUR JOB, or that of the government, to enact judgments against religions and their beliefs.

You are correct. It is, however, my PRIVILEGE and my RIGHT to do so. It's also my pleasure.

Every time there's a Christian bigot who presents his views in public, you'll find me there pointing out the fallacies and exposing the underlying, rock-solid and usually religion-inspired prejudices.

Whenever someone says in public that they are in favor of a system of iniquity for reasons that are ultimately irrelevant to those of us who don't believe in magic, I'll be there to oppose them.

The 21st century has made a lot possible.

It is very much against the very fabric of the US nature to tell religions what they must believe,

They MUST not believe it, I'm presenting ideas for consideration on an Internet forum. Where does this notion come from that religions or religious views deserve respect and deference as a general rule?

People can believe whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on other people's right to equal rights.

It is every good citizen's prerogative to discuss what we ultimately ought to believe if we want to live in a better, more harmonious world, free among other things from religious bigotry. No one is forced to read my posts, not even here - some Christians who couldn't handle my posts have even put me on ignore. Isn't technology grand?

or how they must act in regard to those beliefs, if there is no physical harm done....and frankly, the only harm proposed here (with the compromise referred to in this thread) is that gays wouldn't have the right to force that change in behavior. All they would get is everything they claim they want, i.e; all the civil and legal rights the government offers currently married people AND the right to get married according to their own beliefs, as well.

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

Equal rights. It's not a complicated concept. You give two consenting adults - ANY consenting adults - the same rights in front of the law as any other couple, and you have my approval.

It's quite simple really. I don't think it's an outrageous requirement. I'd be willing to accept any compromise that truly gives homosexuals what they want.

-Woland

[McCulloch]

Suppose, for example, that you belonged to a church which taught and practiced what Jesus said, "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:31-32

Now, the law of the land recognizes divorce and remarriage far beyond the scope of this passage. Yet for such a church, many remarried people, have an invalid divorce and thus are still married to their previous spouse. Hence, Jesus says that whoever marries such a divorced woman commits adultery.

Is there a valid fear in such churches that the state would force them to recognize such marriages that are not recognized as marriages according to their church's doctrine? Is there really any valid fear that the state would force a church to recognize a same-sex marriage, if it was against that church's doctrine?

[Ragna]

churches can do whatever they want, but let everybody else too.

You aren't talking about letting churches do what they want; you are talking about forcing churches to do what you want.

What they have to do is to recognize it's a legal marriage, not a religious marriage, but they have to recognize they have the same civil rights.

Yes, that's what I said. You want to force 'them' to recognize gay marraige as legal marriages--with everything that goes with that.

What does recognison in a legal way mean? Do you really understand it? It means to be tolerant and to accept them as citizens doing whatever they want. Religions don't get that what they call it is irrelevant. You can think what you want, think God thinks of them what you want, but you cannot act like they haven't the rights in a state where everyone is equally a citizen with equal rights. If my religion was against blacks, in private I can think what I want, but I cannot force it into the state. They will be married regardless of what you want, what your religion calls them is something irrelevant.

So if a religion couldn't accept blacks as being persons too, then, would they also say "they want me to accept they are legally citizens - with everything that goes with that"? It sounds too unrealistic, and I simply don't get what it means.

Gay marriage isn't legal in many places because western society and culture in general has never recognized marriage as being applicable to gays. There is a paper by Margaret Somerville, who presented her opinion regarding gay marrage to the 'Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights" in Canada who comes very close to how I feel about this:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

Gays started being banned with Christianity. There were gays in the Greek world (though in a different way). And "western society and culture" gets its art and thinking from the Greeks - but its morals from Christianity. This is what we are trying to secularize. I don't want any morals from Christianity anymore, I want them from TRUE Human Rights, the ones I think, and most unbiased and free people think, are the most righteous ones. They at least don't force anyone into anything by anybody else who believes themselves superior. A great step for humanity.

Yes...that was a direct response to my suggestion that the government use 'civil union' to describe the legal and civil rights given by the government to relationships, and let religion/culture/belief systems define "marriage'...that aspect of it that does not involve government granted rights and priviledges. He wasn't happy with the idea, and wanted to switch the names around.

Nobody cares about the names. They care for the rights, equal rights are deserved, not granted privileges, simply equal rights (the same that there are for hetero marriages). Who is "he"? When a lot of people are struggling for simply a living as persons, as who they are, you are saying they want granted privileges? How tainted by religion is this statement? Aside, the name would be something only religious people with "traditions" would use, nothing to care about by the LGTB community. Look again at the OP:

Of course all rights and privileges would be the same under the legal term,...

So legally you should recognize it as having all of a marriage's rights, whatever you call it and whatever you do in your religious rites is none of my concern, nor do I care sincerely.

Obviously you do, since you insist that religions be forced to recognize gay marriages as marriages.

I do not care what you call it, for the nth time. Religions can think whatever they want. They will still have the legal rights, and it's not something you can deny.

Not religiously, but as a citizen you should accept it legally. None is ever talking about religious recognison. Strawman, is that it?

That's precisely what IS being talked about; religions that don't want to recognize gay marriage as marriage. Nothing else. As a citizen of the USA, I have absolutely no problem with gays joining together in civil unions, and getting the same rights I have as a married woman. As a Mormon, however, my religious definition of 'marriage' simply cannot include gays. It simply can't. It has nothing to do with thinking that they are sinful, or awful people, or 'lesser..' and everything to do with what we believe marriage IS. That definition precludes same-sex relationships, within our beliefs.

That's fine... what are we arguing about then ? I will say again, with all respect, that I do not care for religious definitions, nor I think the LGTB community will.

You call it whatever you want, but legally they have the same rights as everyone. This is all they want. And about your First Amendment rights... well, I'm not a USA citizen. But, funny enough, isn't that the same rule that is violated everyday in the currency "In God we trust"?

I call it what it is. Please don't switch arguments from "I'm not trying to make you do something you don't want' to "it's OK to make you change because I think your beliefs are wrong."

At all, I'm making a comparison between a baseless and untruthful victimization and a true violation of the First Amendment, so you can see the difference more clearly.

The above; the forced recognition of gay marriage as marriage according to our definition. There's nothing there that refers to forcing us to actually perform weddings.

And no one either in the LGTB community will care for your personal religious definition. If they did it could only be to ask for performing of weddings, what other example could there be? As long as it has equal rights, why do you think anyone should care of the religion's opinion?

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

There are no good arguments for preventing homosexuals from marrying each other. Hateful and primitive religious dogma seems to be the main reason that people think otherwise, but it's not "God" being hateful - it's you.
<snip to end>

With all due respect, while I agree that there is little reason to deny gay couples the right to form relationships that have the legal and civil rights that heterosexual married people have, especially when those gay couples do not share the religious beliefs that do not recognize gay marriage as being valid before God, to categorically vilify all belief systems that you don't agree with as being hateful is not only not helping the conversation, it's you being guilty of the same thing you are accusing others of.

Despising intolerance and prejudice is not the same thing as being intolerant or prejudiced.

Think about it.

Yes it is, if you take your intolerance OF intolerance and force compliance with your beliefs.

I'm really tired of hearing the same bigoted nonsense again and again from people who virtually never change their dogmatically and hermetically closed minds, when it comes to something as simple as leaving people alone to love who and how they want, and to have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.

By the same token, I am really tired of being told that, because my beliefs differ from yours, that I have to behave as if yours are the *truth* even when I have a problem with it. I am also really tired of being told that, because even though I firmly believe that homosexual couples should have exactly the same government given rights that heterosexual married couples do, and even more than that, that they should be able to marry according to their own beliefs, that I am intolerant and bigoted because I do not change the very basic nature of my belief about what a family unit and marriage IS to suit you. In other words, I am quite willing to accept gays as they are, and not force them to abide by my beliefs in THEIR lives. I don't see any hint of that sort of acceptance from them, though. It's all one way.

I don't think anything is made better by pretending that all views, no matter how much iniquity and suffering they have caused and cause to this day, deserve respect.

Fine, don't respect us. I don't respect the KKK, Muslim terrorists, 911 'Truthers,' "Birthers," fundamentalists who think that everybody but them is going to hell, extremist religions that dance with snakes, or secularists who insist that their freedom from religion trumps my freedom OF religion. I am not, however, attempting to legislate their compliance with my opinions. Gays, however (and you, for that matter) are attempting to do that to us. The very fact that the idea I proposed has been receiving such intense opposition is absolute proof of that one.

Imagine being the homosexual child of a family of Christian bigots who think that homosexuality is a "sin".

That is difficult. IT's hard on the gay child, and it's hard on the parents. Doesn't make it acceptable, however, to force that family to behave as if they did NOT think their child was sinning, does it?

It's irrelevant "whether I agree with their belief system or not", it's a matter of putting an end to this bigoted nonsense.

What do you tell a racist when you want to refute his ignorant views?

I tell him he is wrong. If he is advertising apartments to rent, I will remind him of the law...but if he is a member of, say, the Trinity United Church of Christ, with the statement 'We are a congregation which is Unashamadly Black..." a church which does not welcome whites in the congregation, that's his right.

Why do people seem to think that prejudiced views that can be said to come from a holy text should somehow be exempt from being treated the same as other such nefarious ideas?

That depends entirely upon what you mean by 'treated the same.' If you mean using your first amendment rights to talk about it...go ahead. That is your right. If, however, you mean to pass a law abrogating THEIR first amendment rights, I have a problem with that. A big one.

I know of one belief system, for instance, that absolutely believes that sex is wrong, period; when one joins that faith, one separates from one's spouse, and the sexes live entirely separately. True, there aren't a whole lot of Shakers left in the world, but 'hateful' isn't the word most people apply to them.

I wouldn't apply any other expression to this than "completely delusional and dangerously repressive".

....and I suppose you would be in favor of passing a law?

Being the child of people who think like this is likely to lead to some serious confusion, all because these people are gullible enough to believe that there's an invisible entity who made them with incredibly strong biological impulses, but who also wants them to repress these at all costs.

It's completely laughable, and I'd be laughing for days about this if it wasn't so sad that people will make themselves and others believe that you should repress normal biological impulses because of some ancient superstitious supernatural belief system.

It is your absolute right to think this. AND to say it. AND to write it...but not to pass laws prohibiting it or forcing compliance with a different belief system that you think better.

Their ignorance no doubt has serious repercussions. Sexual desire in humans is not something that can so easily be willed away.

No..which is, by the way, the reason that Shakers have pretty much disappeared from the planet, with the exception of about six people who handle the museum. Still, they gave us some very precious American traditions--furniture, styles of architecture, and at least one song that is a world favorite. Ever heard of ''Tis a gift to be simple?"

............actually, I can guarantee that you have, even if you don't recognize the first line.

Thus, the COUNTLESS cases of child abuse by clergymen of various Abrahamic persuasions.

With all due respect, child abuse is not limited to those of 'Abrahamic persuasions," by any means. Pedophiles come in the flavors of atheist, agnostic...you name it. Child abuse IS, however, generally against 'Abrahamic' rules.

Many religions, too, consider that celibacy is the higher form of service to God--and when one is celibate, it doesn't much matter whether one is refraining from heterosexual or homosexual sex; celibate is celibate. Is that doctrine 'hateful?"

If you tell others that it's "objectively wrong" (i.e. "God" disapproves) to not be celibate and try to indoctrinate children with such ideas, then yes, it's EXTREMELY hateful, ignorant and nefarious. Those who keep their prejudiced views to themselves and don't try to restrain the rights of others on the basis that their magical tales imply that it's a good idea to do so will have no quarrel with me.

In other words, don't teach your children...but rather, they should let YOU teach their children values that you consider better?

Uh huh.

Tell me; how is that any better than what you are accusing anti-gay Christians of doing? Just because you believe you are right and they are wrong?

Oh,

Wait.

Isn't that what THEY think?

Come to think of it, isn't that the excuse extremist Muslim suicide bombers use for killing people?

What if (yes, I do realize that this is an impossibility...) you are WRONG?

That's the parallel to homosexuals and marriage: tell your gay child that being gay is a sin, and that God hates sin, and you're guilty of a serious crime in my book - making others suffer and hate their very nature, ONLY because of your prejudices which are entirely based on the superstitious views of ancient ignorant humans.

I do not believe that being gay is a sin. I do not believe that being heterosexual is a sin. It's what you DO about it that enters the area of 'sin.'

All this "hate the sin and not the sinner" nonsense doesn't exonerate Christianity in the slightest from all the harm it's caused to people, making them feel guilty about themselves, petrifying their minds with inane tales of eternal torment and the like.

You are entitled to your opinion, certainly. You are not entitled to enforce your opinion, by law, upon me.

Then there are others whose basic doctrine involves the very nature of male/female relationships, and that ultimately, salvation involves a husband and wife as a unit, an eternal unit. With a doctrine like that, with an added understanding that when, for whatever reason, the man cannot find a wife, or a woman a husband, that this will be taken care of in God's own time, then how is that being discriminatory specifically against gays?

Did I imply that it was? Are these people opposed to equal rights for homosexuals?

I'm not...but then you know that already. I am opposed to them having more than equal rights. I am opposed to them forcing me to behave as if the aspect of marriage over and above the legal and civil rights afforded people by the government is acceptable in the eyes of God, and that we would have to behave as if it were; it is exactly akin to the Romans forcing Christians to put statues of Roman gods in their places of worship, on the principle that they were discriminating against worshipers of Diana.

I'm not sure what you were trying to get at here.

The thing is, it is NOT YOUR JOB, or that of the government, to enact judgments against religions and their beliefs.

You are correct. It is, however, my PRIVILEGE and my RIGHT to do so. It's also my pleasure.

And that is the scariest thing you've said yet. You have the privilege and right to EXPRESS your opinions, but you do not have the right to ENACT JUDGMENTS.

Every time there's a Christian bigot who presents his views in public, you'll find me there pointing out the fallacies and exposing the underlying, rock-solid and usually religion-inspired prejudices.

Not a problem, as long as you restrict your opinions to words and demonstrations. It is the attempt to enforce your views by passing laws that becomes problematic.

Whenever someone says in public that they are in favor of a system of iniquity for reasons that are ultimately irrelevant to those of us who don't believe in magic, I'll be there to oppose them.

The 21st century has made a lot possible.

It is very much against the very fabric of the US nature to tell religions what they must believe,

They MUST not believe it, I'm presenting ideas for consideration on an Internet forum. Where does this notion come from that religions or religious views deserve respect and deference as a general rule?

Please remember: I am not arguing for censorship. I am not advocating forcing you to shut up, or to stop proclaiming your beliefs and opinions. My objection is strictly, and only, about those who want to use government and the law to force others to behave against their beliefs, within their own culture, churches, schools and homes.

Please note; I am not attempting to get a law passed that would force you to change the way you behave, or to get you to stop expressing your opinion. This is about a law that, when passed, would have very real, physical consequences. Fines. Penalties. IRS problems....a choice between belief and the law, where 'the law is an ass.'

People can believe whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on other people's right to equal rights.

Equal rights have never included "I'll make you approve of me and accept my lifestyle within your religion, or you'll answer to the law." Not here. That's what we left Europe to get AWAY from. It doesn't matter how weird YOU think those beliefs are, sir; the very fact that you can openly and freely express your atheism without fear of legal reprisal and persecution is the direct result of this; the idea that one person cannot force another to change his beliefs simply because they are not popular, or 'acceptable.'

Whether you like it or not, your freedom to be who you are depends greatly upon our freedom to be who we are.

It is every good citizen's prerogative to discuss what we ultimately ought to believe if we want to live in a better, more harmonious world, free among other things from religious bigotry. No one is forced to read my posts, not even here - some Christians who couldn't handle my posts have even put me on ignore. Isn't technology grand?

Discuss? Absolutely.

But we here are not simply discussing discussion. We are discussing forced compliance with a principle that is not acceptable to those upon whom it is imposed. I came up with an idea that would allow all parties to have what they CLAIM they want; absolutely equal rights and treatment in this area, and the constant opposition to it from those who would gain the most is proof enough to me that the real goal isn't equal rights; it is the force compliance and acceptance of behavior that is, frankly, considered to be very wrong by many different groups.

That is such an egregious violation of the first amendment that the constitution may well break under it.

or how they must act in regard to those beliefs, if there is no physical harm done....and frankly, the only harm proposed here (with the compromise referred to in this thread) is that gays wouldn't have the right to force that change in behavior. All they would get is everything they claim they want, i.e; all the civil and legal rights the government offers currently married people AND the right to get married according to their own beliefs, as well.

The more I hear from folks opposing the idea, the more convinced I am that the real agenda isn't to gain civil/legal rights or to marry; it is to force everyone else to change their behavior and beliefs, and to do so by force.

Equal rights. It's not a complicated concept. You give two consenting adults - ANY consenting adults - the same rights in front of the law as any other couple, and you have my approval.

Then why don't I have your approval? That is precisely what I propose.

It's quite simple really. I don't think it's an outrageous requirement. I'd be willing to accept any compromise that truly gives homosexuals what they want.

The problem is, it's obvious that what they claim they want isn't what they really want. To paraphrase...it's not enough for them to win; others must lose.