In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

[Spartacus]

Would you have objected had the florist refused service to a mixed-race couple, based on their faith? Would you have objected to fliers being handed out denouncing the "sin" of miscegenation, based on their interpretation of scriptures? Would you cheerfully allow someone to make demonstrations in your neighborhood on the evils of race-mixing, based on their religion?

I've already addressed this, Outis: anti-miscegenation laws are historically anomalous. It's obvious that you see the recognition of marriage equality as part of the narrative of liberation of marginalized LGBT people, and I agree that society, especially for the past 50-100 years, has done a rather bad job of understanding and respecting their inherent human dignity. It's not a question of whether they were oppressed or whether they should be able to form loving and fulfilling relationships with people they choose, but whether there is anything more to marriage than a loving relationship between consenting adults.

How do you define marriage, Outis? I've provided the definition I'm working from. Could you provide one of your own so that we know exactly what we're arguing about?

[Paprika]

Like it or not, marriage equality will be the law of the land in the US. Churches will not have to perform marriages that go against their faith. The Civil Rights acts that prevent discrimination in retail, housing, transport, and other areas of commerce will eventually be expanded to include sexual orientation and sexual identity.

Are you trying to say that there will be no negative impact on Christians who oppose it? Refusing to provide services for homosexual 'marriages' can and will result in being sued. Even speaking out against it will, judging from laws in Canada, Britain, and other countries, be gradually prohibited.

[Spartacus]

Are you trying to say that there will be no negative impact on Christians who oppose it? Refusing to provide services for homosexual 'marriages' can and will result in being sued. Even speaking out against it will, judging from laws in Canada, Britain, and other countries, be gradually prohibited.

Yes and no, for reasons I explained in my first post in this thread: marriages are so obviously different from the sorts of relationships now being civilly recognized that a gradual recognition of the value of marriage as marriage is inevitable.

[Cow Poke]

Some do.

And those Churches who see their facility as a "rental venue" probably won't object to same sex unions.

Those would be subject to public venue laws, unless they chose to restrict their hall rentals to Christian events only.

I don't know of many Christian Churches who are in the habit of "renting out their halls" to non-Christian events.

One need not keep it members only,

Wow, that's very GRACIOUS of you! It's not what you said earlier:

The solution is simple: they can cease and desist from offering their hall as a public venue to any but church members.

though that would be clearly cut-and-dried. One can say "Only within certain denomination" or "Only after counseling by the pastor to assure that our doctrinal requirements are fulfilled."

I think the Churches that oppose same sex unions pretty much do that.

So -- what's your interest in being the Church Sheriff?

[Paprika]

Yes and no, for reasons I explained in my first post in this thread: marriages are so obviously different from the sorts of relationships now being civilly recognized that a gradual recognition of the value of marriage as marriage is inevitable.

I didn't read it. It was too long

[Cow Poke]

I didn't read it. It was too long

College has ruined that boy.

[Spartacus]

College has ruined that boy.

And in due time, I plan to return the favor.

[Epoetker]

anti-miscegenation laws are historically anomalous.

Not necessarily, it's usually just a question of whether they're enforcing race or class distinctions. In love laws matter much less than prevailing social attitudes; marriage is about as classist today as it was racist in the past.

[Outis]

I've already addressed this, Outis: anti-miscegenation laws are historically anomalous.

In world history, they are--we are discussing US history, where many individual things may be anomalous, but still occur, and are relevant.

And considering the context of US history, your analogy of copper and steel is splendidly answered in certain specific Supreme Court cases--namely "Loving v. Virginia" and "Brown v. Board." There is no "separate but equal" under US law, Mr. Spartacus.

How do you define marriage, Outis? I've provided the definition I'm working from. Could you provide one of your own so that we know exactly what we're arguing about?

Marriage is a kinship arrangement between consenting adults that entails certain rights, responsibilities, and relatedness. In my view, the affected parties should have the primary responsibility of designating what the rights, responsibilities, and relationships precisely entail, provided that:
1. All parties are consenting adults.
2. All children are brought up with proper care.
3. No fraud, abuse, or neglect occur.

[Outis]

Are you trying to say that there will be no negative impact on Christians who oppose it? Refusing to provide services for homosexual 'marriages' can and will result in being sued. Even speaking out against it will, judging from laws in Canada, Britain, and other countries, be gradually prohibited.

As the government has not acted to curtail the speech of such groups as the KKK, I highly doubt that any free speech restrictions would be put into place--and if they were, they would rapidly be overturned. Canada and Britain have different laws.

And as retail businesses (and several other categories of commerce) are already required to serve without regards to the race of the customers, how is this any different from those who have a sincere belief that people of other races should not mix, even on a social or commercial level?

[Outis]

And those Churches who see their facility as a "rental venue" probably won't object to same sex unions.

Yours obviously doesn't fall into that category.

So -- what's your interest in being the Church Sheriff?

I no more want to tell you what you do in your church than I want to tell the KKK how to run their churches. But I will be glad when your religious doctrines that have no secular benefit are no longer enshrined in law.

[Paprika]

And as retail businesses (and several other categories of commerce) are already required to serve without regards to the race of the customers, how is this any different from those who have a sincere belief that people of other races should not mix, even on a social or commercial level?

Well, I have no objections to this.

[Outis]

Well, I have no objections to this.

No objections to what ... to a business saying "We don't serve blacks," or to the laws that prevent such?

[Epoetker]

I will be glad when your religious doctrines that have no secular benefit are no longer enshrined in law.

Very poor, see me after class. Reading material: "Gays have no nurturing instinct," by an identified non-religious. Elaborate on what secular benefits are served by applauding such a shallow and hedonistic subculture. Use numbers if possible. My opinion lies very much toward:

But we're still going to have to pay for their [screwed]-up behavior, not just financially as tax-payers picking up the check for health care etc., but also as friends or neighbors or co-workers who become collateral damage from the sewer-drain explosion of My Spectacular Alternative Lifestyle.

Inability to consider these factors when discussing the issue is the sign of an immature and inexperienced mind.

[Paprika]

No objections to what ... to a business saying "We don't serve blacks," or to the laws that prevent such?

I don't think there should be any legal objections to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.