Do we have to respect the "faith based" argument against civil same sex marriage?

[ruggerson]

Your thoughts please.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. All we have to respect is the freedom of individuals to practice their faith.

That means if the government defines marriage to be between a man and a woman, or between anybody else, they are violating somebody's faith. The best step is for the government to get OUT of the marriage game, and give legal civil unions for everybody, and let people figure out if they are married or not.

[hedgehog]

12. That would probably be the best solution, but I don't see it happening soon.

On the other hand, what happens if in 10 or 20 years, a majority of American Christians (including Catholics) favor same sex marriage? That's too long to wait, but I see it happening. Several main-line denominations already recognize same sex marriage.

[napoleon_in_rags]

18. I see it as the simplest solution.

Because you can ask a conservative church: Who should define marriage for you, the government, or your church? And totally separate it from being about gays.

[hedgehog]

27. Holy Moly - I think you've got something there. What if we came up with

a name to cover all sorts of non-traditional bonds - because it's not only the GLBT community that is hurt by this issue. Think of the case of an elderly lady who is being cared for by a neighbor. The neighbor would have a better feel for the lady's interests than a distant relative in another state. What if any two people could walk into the court house and get a civil bond. Then we could tell churches it's up to them to define marriage as they see fi

[Kutjara]

2. No.

When dogma conflicts with what is right, dogma must yield.

[madeline_con]

3. Hell to the NO!

Their lame assed argument is that marriage is somehow about God. How could this be true, if we can run down to the J.O.P. and get hitched? Atheists can get hitched, with no God even mentioned!

It's a civil right, and should go before the Supreme Court!

This fear based freak out that conveniently occurs right before elections needs to stop. :rant:

[Kutjara]

8. And who were the witnesses...

...at Adam and Eve's wedding, anyway? :evilgrin:

[madeline_con]

9. See? Proof! It's a civil thing. n/t

[wintemark]

47. Give me a few more months and I might have a case to bring

Currently I am waiting for my University to decide if they are going to approve my apeal for dropping out of school back in January when my boyfirend/partners mother died from cancer. Here in Michigan we already passed a constitutional amendment banning the acknowlegment of any union beside that of one man and one woman for any reason, so technically the University can't appove my appeal because they can't acknowledge the relationship. The only thing I have on my side right now is that the Assistant Dean of Students told me I should be approved as long as I can produce copies of the death certificate proving that she died in January of this year.

We will see.

P.S. I was also told that the Dean of Students was a Lesbian so I am hoping that helps too.

[MrModerate]

4. As in "because my religion says it's wrong for me . . .

. . . then it must be wrong for you, too (even if you don't happen to follow my religion at all)?"

That would be a NO.

Religious imperatives only bear on their believers. Everyone else has the right to ignore them.

When law and custom set a standard that crosses religious lines, that's another matter.

[aspergris]

5. have to?

you don't have to respect anybody or their argument.


i happen to know a few people (mormons fwiw) who are very against same sex marriage. They are quite good friends of mine. I have never heard them speak an ill word about gays whatsoever. But they strongly disagree with gay marriage. I respect that their disagreement with me does not come from hate of gays. otoh, i knew a guy once who REALLY hated gays. I'm not going to respect HIS opinion at all. he was an atheist, so it wasn't faith based anyway...

fwiw, i was talking about the south park mormon episode (which is pretty fiercely harsh on mormons but that's cool because that's what SP does and they do it well), and the one who saw it thought it was pretty funny.

generally speaking, i like people who can find humour in themselves and their positions. i tend not to like people who are "holy" about their positions in ANYTHING that they cannot have a sense of humour.

[Independent_Voice]

35. Question about your friends...

Do they support homosexuals being able to enter into a civil union that would give domestic protections?

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. No. Faith is individual, non-transferable, and a piss-poor reason, on its own,

for public policy of ANY sort.

[terrya]

7. No, we don't.

Why should someone's religious beliefs deny my SECULAR, LEGAL right to marriage?

This is what bothers me about Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage. Same thing.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. The First Amendment makes "faith based" arguments against civil marriage irrelevant

Legal marriage, by definition, is a civil matter. Religious opinion and views have no standing.

If marriage is a religious institution, as many here have argued, would it therefore be valid to have laws regulating who could get confirmed, granted special legal rights to people who have been baptized and esablish a mandatory filing with the government for all persons wishing to be bar mitzvah-ed, right?

[Skittles]

11. no

I tolerate what I find tolerable and I don't find homophobia tolerable, period

[DCKit]

13. "They" will have far more credibility when they begin stoning adulterers...

As it commands in the texts they so freely pick and choose from - not to mention all the other inconvenient laws they choose to ignore.

[Hydra]

14. Freedom of religion is not a trump card

If I decided to create a religion in which same sex marriage was the only acceptable type of marriage, how would I suddenly have the right to deny a straight couple the ability to marry? That's not a "Freedom," that's a power.

[eShirl]

15. the various churches can set their own rules for their own religious marriage ceremonies

they don't need to also dictate what the government can and cannot do in civil marriage ceremonies.

[Rhythm]

16. No one has said that their 'faiths' have to respect our civil rights

This is WHY we have that 'wall of separation': to keep diametrically opposite spiritual paths from stepping all over each other's civil rights. They are welcome to believe anything they want to, and to practice their religion however they will, as long as they're not physically harming anyone else without their consent.

They can make all of the 'arguments' that they wish, but when it comes down to it, the 14th Amendment is just as important as the 1st.

[Brazenly Liberal]

17. Hell, NO!

I'm completely done with making allowances for assholes just because their assholery is parading as spirituality. Fuck 'em.

[Fran Kubelik]

19. Why should my faith be any less to respect than their faith?

[Ms. Toad]

20. There is no legitimate "faith based" argument against

civil same sex marriage. Marriage is a civil legal relationship between a couple and the state. By special provisions written into most marriage laws, the state grants recognition to most, but not all, marriages solemnized in a religious ceremony.

The exceptions are particularly telling as to the secular nature of civil/legal marriage: Marriage laws only recognize marriages solemnized in religious ceremonies when the couple meets state criteria for marriage - for example my faith community recognizes my marriage, but since my spouse and I are not eligible for marriage under state law, the state of Ohio does not grant recognition to our marriage.

[Solon]

21. No, it demands no more respect than "mark of Cain" beliefs of white racist Christians. n/t

[hoosier_lefty]

22. what does the Bible say?

Does it say marriage is between a man and a woman ? where ?

I know the Bible says you're not supposed to eat pork.
Is there a law against pork? why not?


Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Smarmie Doofus]

23. "Faith-based" is the most laughable euphemism of the Bush era.

When homosexuals are beheaded in Saudi Arabia for violating Sharia law.... is that not a "faith-based" act? Isn't anti-semitism ... at it's core... an attitude that eventuates from a "faith-based argument" ? Wasn't the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, for advocating Copernicanism, a "faith-based" undertaking?

Let's not adopt so readily the linguistic machinations of the barbarians currently in power.

That's point one. Point two: do the Judean-Christian scriptures speak directly to the question of marraige equality? If so, when and where?

I doubt it, but if "yes".. then the question ought to be 'do we have to respect the "religious" argument against civil same sex marriage' .

Answer: No. "Civil". By deinition: "separate and distinct from religion".

[Ian David]

24. People should not be allowed to god-wash their bigotry. n/t

[LeftHander]

29. God-Wash new and improved - Whiter and straighter than ever...nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

25. Definitions

So much of this debate centers around presumed definitions of words.

For some People of Faith Marriage is clearly a Religous Practice in their view. The Contract nature of Marriage is a complete afterthought and not something they really think about. In this forum we typically talk about the rights associated with the Civil Contract of Marriage.

So we have to respect that when we say these Civil Marriage rights must be extended to all people regardless of orientation. They hear that their religion, the Marriage Sacrament, must change.

[Unvanguard]

26. Of course not. Political decisions must be made according to public standards.

Not according to arbitrary private conviction.

[litlady]

28. They can believe that, but when it involves state institutions it violates the establishment clause!

So no respect of that position in terms of trying to legislate with it. And of course personally the notion of legislating against someone based on a biological trait is ridiculous!

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

30. No. Scriptural doctrine should not be used to deny legal equality to any cultural group.

The Bible is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. Simple as that.

[readmoreoften]

31. We're not obligated to respect anything. In fact, you either respect something or your don't.

Advocating that such opinions should be illegal is a completely different story. I also don't respect creationism or groups that advocate lynching or the torture of kittens and puppies. It's okay to vehemently disagree with people who are wrong. It's even okay to yell at them. In fact, I'm personally okay with violent reprisal in limited cases. For example, I think that those Africans-Americans who protected their communities and physically fought the Klan in the first part of the 20th century were right for doing so. Frankly, I think self-determination earns a group respect. Just like the playground bullies. If they keep punching you, you have to show them you can fight. Calling your mom or the principle will never solve the problem.

That being said, I think it's important that we fight our own verbal battles and that we don't try to legislate against opinion.

Not only would I say that we don't HAVE TO respect anti-gay ideology, I would say that we DON'T respect it and are incapable of respecting it and the very idea of respecting it means entertaining that it has some value which is thoroughly self-hating and destructive.

[closeupready]

32. No. Eff that.

n/t

[Tyler Durden]

33. No.

No question. No.

Let's say your religious belief says that the world is flat and that Martians rule the world.

Do I have to respect that? No.

[Independent_Voice]

34. Of course not...

If someone insists that they shouldn't have to be "converted" by your faith and morals, then why should you suddenly be forced to adhere to theirs?

[freestyle]

36. No. We must respect religions' setting their internal rules.

In Maryland, the marriage equality legislation is called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. It makes it very clear that religions remain absolutely free to decide who they will confer their religious blessings upon and that clergy are under no obligation to participate in civil marriages, but that the government institution of civil marriage will now be open to two people and not just a man and a woman.

The First Amendment is very clear about free exercise of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear about equal protection under the law. Following both of them leads to civil marriage equality.

[SarahB]

37. NO! My non-believing tax-paying self does NOT live in a theocracy.

Last time I checked anyway. :(

It's my government too!

[GOPNotForMe]

38. 1 more vote for HELL NO! nt

[LeftCoast]

39. If they respected us, I'd consider it but since they don't...No!

Respect works both ways.

[Tyo]

40. No

When it comes to the laws under which all of us must live we don't have to respect faith-based arguments for anything. Laws need to be based on something other than faith. And that holds true even if it's a law you happen to agree with.

[Darth Lenore]

41. Absolutely not. We don't have to respect that any more than....

...we have to respect religious arguments against marriages between previously divorced people, interracial marriages, or interreligious marriages.

Besides, there are plenty of religions and certain denominations of the big Abrahamic religions that approve of gay marriage. Why should the anti-people be privileged over the pro-people?

Civil marriage is a contract with the government and should be extended to all people. Then it should be up to the individual religions whether they want to acknowledge those unions or not. You know, like Catholics and certain Protestants already do with marriages between divorced people.

[sui generis]

42. hell no, with prejudice

We are free to be and do WHATEVER we want so long as it doesn't result in denying or diminishing the civil and human rights of any other individual.

If religion steps into the ring with the prize being we get to keep our civil rights, then religion better get its ass ready for a smack down.

Turn it around rugger: any faith argument we could use in return would require some third party declaring which viewpoint was "mainstream" and which one was "not real" religion.

That's how you fight it. If they want to make a claim that their religion is "righter" than my religion, they better be prepared for the consequences. In Allah we Trust, In Gaia we Trust, In FSM we Trust - majority rules right?

The main thing ruggerlad is we don't need permission to live our lives as we see fit. We don't need guidance or opinions from anyone who isn't living our lives with us, not tyrannical, not benevolent, not nothing.

[goddess40]

43. Not in a secular country like ours

For as much as the fundies like to re-write history and claim our founders were all Christians and meant for this to be a Christian nation we are not a Christian nation. According to the fundies Jefferson who was a deist must have been a closet Christian.

Since they can't seem to understand or "respect" the truth about our founding fathers their claim that civil marriage is moot.

I think we should go to a system where everyone must have a civil union and then if they want to find a church to marry them to please their religious need then they can do so.

{I'm straight (I hate that term, sounds so boring) but got married in the court house with not one mention of type of god, so does that mean I'm not really married?}

[Dark]

44. Legalize it and let the churches decide on their own.

everybody wins.

[Occulus]

45. Fuck no, we do NOT

I have NO respect for ANY "faith-based" argument on ANY subject. Nobody who is not "of the faith" should have any respect for that shite.

We don't have to respect your faith if we are not "of the faith". Period.

I have no respect for organized religion, and very little for its adherents.

I. Will. Not. Be. Controlled.

Not by faith. Not by God. Not by the law. Not by anything but my own moral compass.

(Immediately after I learned Santa Claus wasn't real when I was five, I had occasion to be in church for an ordinary, vanilla Sunday service. I immediately thought, "If they told me Santa wasn't real, how can they believe this is real?"

I haven't believed in their imaginary sky daddy since.)

[ajh60]

46. No Church

should be forced to marry anyone. Some will not marry if one is divorced. I see no obligation to ask a religion to "change" with the times. They would be forever changing. There are churches, as someone said who will marry gay/lesbian couples. More power to them. It should not be forced upon any church.

[LeftHander]

48. No...becasue it is hypocritical and immoral.

You can't pick and choose what parts of a faith to follow because it justifies intolerance and inequality.

Being in a same sex relationship I have learned first hand the trickle down inequality that has resulted in Wisconsin's ban on same sex marriage.

My partner's brother passed away and leaving us to care for his daughter. try and sift through that...it is like I don;t exist i the eyes of the law. My partner and I are providing a loving home and TOGETHER we are supporting her. Yet I cannot put her on my health plan at work and can make no decisions about her medical care...or schooling.

It is simply and completely unfair in so many ways.

So ask me again....

and I will SCREAM

NO everytime.