# Secularism: the new religion?



## Everness

A national organization of family values activists joined Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and more than 1,000 local churchgoers on Sunday to argue to evangelicals that the legalization of same-sex marriage here is threatening religious liberty throughout the country. Here's the full article.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...p_to_rally_opposition_to_gay_marriage/?page=1

I was interested in what Brett Clifton, assistant director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University, said,  

"The Family Research Council is an important focus for conservative Christians, and these events are really effective at rallying their base. *They are trying to rally people around the idea that religious people have rights too, and that government and society have grown increasingly secular and anti religious.*"

Could conservatives have a point? We argue that we shouldn't impose *religious values* on a whole society. For instance, conservatives believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gay marriage should be outlawed. Some of us counterargue that we shouldn't impose our religious values on the rest of society, especially those who don't share that belief. But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values* on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society? Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious? Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?


----------



## cuchuflete

Phluff and nonsense!  As you and I discussed at great length in another thread about a year ago, what goes on under my neighbor's roof has no effect on my marital status.  It has no effect on my religious beliefs and practices.  It doesn't even change the way I vote.  

Legalizing gay marriage does not impose values on anybody.
Those who don't want to marry a gay person are not required by such legalization to do so.  They may remain single, marry a person of whatever sex they please, or engage in fantasies of poligamy.

The claim of imposition of secular values is so absurd that, if carried out of its realm of ignorance, it implies that the right to donate organs if one is killed in a car crash requires people to give an arm or a lung.  Some religions are opposed to organ donations.  Are they being secularized because other people have a right to decide what happens to their very own body parts?


No, secularism is not becoming the new state religion.  In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Bush has made—through so-called 'faith based initiatives'—religious organizations instruments of the state.  

As to "family values activists", when Gingrinch and friends started thumping for that, the leaders of the movement were all on their second or third marriages, leading an astute commentator to ask, "Which family?".

It's a bunch of bull twaddle.



PS:  "...*government and society have grown increasingly secular and anti religious."

*That is an untrue and nonsensical remark.


----------



## .   1

G'day Everness,
Good to see you back in fine form.
Which religions are you referring to with your religious values question?
Which government and society has grown more secular?
Religious people have rights within their religion and they have the right to stay the hell out of the lives of people not of their religion.
Do you want a religious leader of a religion that you are not affiliated with to be given the power to impose his will on your life?
Do you want us to be controlled by the myriad rules of myriad religions some of which are at great divergance to each other?

.,,


----------



## Etcetera

But it's rubbish! Every person has the right to believe whatever they want and do whatever they want - unless it's forbidden by law. 
I, personally, can't see how the legalisation of same-sex marriages can affect my religious views.


----------



## cuchuflete

Some propositions just make for good targets.  About a week ago I noticed a series of investigative essays in the N.Y. Times newspaper about the very large and growing tax exemptions granted at local and state levels to religions.  These are not for church buildings, but for all sorts of business operations owned by religious groups, including expensive retirement communities and other enterprises.   For every one of these tax exempt properties and operations, all citizens, including those who are members of distinct religions, or no organized religion, pay proportionally more tax.  That doesn't seem to be a move to secularization, does it?  It is part of a long tradition of state subsidies of religion in the U.S., and it's increasing.  

NY Times article

You may think that this is good news or bad news, but it certainly is not evidence of secularization.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Everness said:


> "The Family Research Council is an important focus for conservative Christians, and these events are really effective at rallying their base. *They are trying to rally people around the idea that religious people have rights too, and that government and society have grown increasingly secular and anti religious.*"
> 
> [...]
> 
> Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?



The (American) government has always been a secular government as specified in the First Amendment. 

What these Christians ('these' = the ones trying to make laws based on their morality) fail to understand is that the reason their religion (and all the other religious groups in America) has been and is allowed to flourish and grow is because of the freedom of religion and the secular state.

In fact, look at the difference between the strict secular American government where a vast majority of the population is religious in some way, and the Norwegian government, which has a state church and a couple of absurd laws regarding membership of the royals and the members of the government (!) - however, even though more than three quarters of the population are members of the state church, only a tiny part of those regularly attend church.
A large survey also showed that around a quarter of the population were agnostic and another quarter atheistic.

The religious right in America who argue that their religion is under attack have no idea of how strong it really is.


----------



## cuchuflete

Namakemono said:


> That link doesn't work.



Try this:  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11religious.html

If it doesn't work, go to the NYTimes site, and search for 
"religion exemptions".  It's #4 on the display of search results.
You may need to register—it's free—to view the page.


----------



## ampurdan

I don't know why some religious leaders engage in these very simplistic, self-victimization claims. It does not happen only in the US, they do the same in Spain, for instance. As other foreros have said, this legislation does not damage the people who do not want to marry a person of their own sex, despite the fact that their religion might tell them something different. Keeping thought rational makes no harm to anybody either. If this means secularization, then it is a good secularization in my point of view.

However, gay marriage is not even necessarily a "securalizing" legal institution. There are religious gay couples which wish to marry after all. I guess that the more religious they are, the more they yearn for marriage.

So, in my point of view, who makes it become "secularizing" is noone but antigay marriage Churches and religions themselves. They decide what is securalizing and what is not. And doing so, they make themselves look like they do not care about some social minorities, levelling them evil. It's not only that they do not agree with gay marriage, but they even consider it utterly evil and dangerous. It looks like they think that they need to keep their beliefs untouched at all costs in order to keep old believers together and gain new discontented ones. Not such a pious goal after all.


----------



## cuchuflete

Lemminkäinen said:


> ...even though more than three quarters of the population are members of the state church, only a tiny part of those regularly attend church.
> A large survey also showed that around a quarter of the population were agnostic and another quarter atheistic.


  3/4 +1/4 +1/4 = 100%?  Secular or sectarian math?


----------



## ampurdan

I guess you can be an atheist or an agnostic nominal member of the state church...


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Ah yes, a little misunderstanding there - what I meant to say is that even though 3/4 of the population are members, very few of them are Christians/believers.
If you're baptised in a church and one of your parents is already a member, you will automatically be registered as a member as well.

There's currently a debate going on about seperation of the state and church, and another survey showed that if people had to actively become members, the number would be a single-digit percentage (I'll see if I can find the exact number).


----------



## cuchuflete

ampurdan said:
			
		

> However, gay marriage is not even necessarily a "securalizing" legal institution. There are religious gay couples which wish to marry after all.


Excellent point!   The attempt to paint gay marriage as inherently secular is rubbish.   It may not be comfortable for some religious doctrines, but that does not make it either secular or anti-religious. 

Here is an interesting hypothetical scenario:  Some people found a religion which teaches that, among other things, the deity/creator/call-it-what-you-will is gay.  Said hypothetical religion requests tax exemptions not only for its church building, but for other properties and operations, much as many 'mainstream' religions do.  Can you imagine the outcry from some parts of the religious establishment?  "My theology is entitled to tax benefits, and yours isn't!"


----------



## ampurdan

I don't know how it works in the USA, but you have to be a very reputable religion to earn a living from taxes in Spain. The Roman Catholic one is the only one entitled to ask the taxpayer to allocate them a percentage on the income tax return. We have a weird aconfessional State.

So, the Gayhead-religion D) wouldn't get much money from the State anyway.


----------



## cuchuflete

To clarify, Ampurdan, in the US there is no transfer of state money directly to a religion.  The financial support comes in the form of exemptions from paying taxes.

Example:
1- A secular organization owns a meeting house.  It pays property taxes to help support the local costs of roads, police protection, firefighters, public water supply, sewers, etc.
2- A religious organization owns a meeting house.  It does not pay property taxes, but receives the same services.  

The NY Times article describes some extensions of this exemption policy to properties that have only a very indirect association with religion.


----------



## ampurdan

I see. I think here secular non-profit organizations pursuing aims of general interest enjoy income and value added tax exemptions, but Roman Catholic organizations, no matter if they pursue aims of general interest, enjoy full exemption and the donatives to them enjoy the greatest deductions (other confessions can enjoy from all this too, subject to the appropriate agreement with the State).

Therefore, they cannot complain about secularization of the State in either of our countries, Cuchuflete. 

However, it's true that people in Spain and in Western Europe is every time less religious, which accounts for a secularization of society, which is what our religious leaders are complaining about.


----------



## Everness

I’m just trying to look at things from the perspective of Christian conservatives: how they feel affected by this development. I’m sure that if they could, fundamentalists and evangelicals in the US would ban homosexuality in all its forms and expressions: individual, familial, group and societal. But that’s not what they are worried about right now. Deep down they know that there are things that can’t be effectively legislated. Their complaint has to do with the attempt to change the nature of matrimony, a thousand-year-old social institution with deep roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. It’s important to note that they are reacting to *gay marriage *but not to *gay civil unions*. 

Let me use the following metaphor to illustrate my point. Suppose that the only car in the US is a 4-door midsize sedan that fits 4 individuals. Suddenly someone in Washington decides that the new 4-door midsize sedan should have 6 doors and accommodate 6 individuals. They also announce that the production of 4-door midsize sedans will stop altogether. So everyone is going to drive the new 6-door midsize sedan. But you and many others love the 4-door midsize sedan. “Why do you make me drive a 6-door midsize sedan that I don’t like?,” you argue. What’s the solution? Build a more *inclusive *6-door midsize sedan for those who want to own and drive one but keep producing the 4-door midsize sedan. It all boils down to giving people options. In other words, what conservative Christians might be saying is that they don’t want marriage to be redesigned or reinvented. “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do you want to change it? If gays want to live together and have the same legal rights and responsibilities than straight people, they could always resort to civil unions.” Even straight couples could benefit from this arrangement and instead of getting married they would get "civil unioned." Down the road we could even extend the concept of civil unions to include any type of unions. You could have a legally sanctioned relationship with your dog, cat, favorite plant or tree, etc. etc.  

Back to my point, I think it’s a good compromise that should keep everyone happy. It all boils down to what’s in a name. Gay rights wouldn’t be compromised at all. They should enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities. However, if gay people feel shortchanged, that their constitutional rights are being violated, and that access to matrimony is somewhat curtailed, well, that’s a problem. If I were part of their lobby, I wouldn’t try to push gay marriage too much because they could end up with a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Ah, we already had our first divorce of a legally married gay couple here in Massachusetts so I hope that the gay community realizes that the beauty and bliss of matrimony have been overrated.


----------



## ampurdan

Dear Everness,

Matrimony is already the factory in which they make all 4-door sedanes. You only need that the board of directors should aprove the new line of 6-door sedanes so that everybody can get what they want.

Civil union is not matrimony. Civil union is a different factory which produces similar cars with a different, cheaper brand.

I think that everybody should be entitled to chose either option... Or none.


----------



## Kajjo

Everness said:


> They are trying to rally people around the idea that religious people have rights too, and that government and society have grown increasingly secular and anti religious."


I assume you are talking about the US only. As far as I know, the US is by constitution a secular nation and religion is believed to be private. For me it is amazing to what ridiculous degree the US does _not_ follow its constitution with regards to religion. Many laws and many decision of the goverment are dominated by religious believings when they should be neutral and secular. Think about your own constitution and whether you support it.



> We argue that we shouldn't impose religious values on a whole society. But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose secular values on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives?


No, it is not, at least not in the sense you mention. Nobody is forced to change his style of life or his believings. However, I agree that _if _marriage is given along with special rights (with regards to tax, legislation etc.) the society should ask itself, why marriages, and maybe which kind of marriages, should be given those special support.



> Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?


Again: The constitution says there is no state religion. Period. The absence of state religion is not a state religion in itself. It is neutrality. It is about keeping religion a private matter. That's a great thing to do.

Liberty. Our most precious right.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Everness said:


> I’m just trying to look at things from the perspective of Christian conservatives: Deep down they know that there are things that can’t be effectively legislated.


My Lord! 

Deep down I am convinced that there are things that should not be legislated. The whole world laughs about laws against oral sex of consenting adult -- which cannot be enforced and is such a private matter that I always wonder who on earth wanted to discuss that in parliament in the first place!

Liberty, not regulation.

Kajjo


----------



## ElaineG

> It’s important to note that they are reacting to *gay marriage *but not to *gay civil unions*.


 
That's just not true: look up "civil unions" at the Focus on the Family website and you'll find this in reaction to Vermont's civil unions law:



> TAKE ACTION: Pray that the civil-unions law is overturned and that God would protect the institution of marriage in the other 49 states. For more information about how to protect your state, click here.


http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0012193.cfm

and this on California:



> Focus on the Family is working with several other pro-family organizations to fight "civil unions" legislation that would essentially legalize homosexual marriage and therefore undermine the sanctity of marriage not only in California, but across the nation as well.


 
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0019218.cfm

Is Focus on the Family some marginal group?

They have a staff of 1,300 and 2.3 million subscribers to their magazines. According to People for the American Way, 



> Focus on the Family (FOF) is the largest international religious-right group in the United States, a multi-media empire that includes its own “campus” and zip code in Colorado Springs, Colorado.


 
And here is the Family Research Council, another major Christian organization, explaining why they support the Federal Marriage Amendment, even though it doesn't ban legislatively-enacted same sex unions:



> The FMA does not create civil unions nor impose them upon the states. It simply allows the merits of civil unions to be debated at the state level, _where we believe we can be successful in preventing these counterfeit marriages_.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ratification of the current FMA, which would prohibit three of the four potential methods for legally recognizing same-sex unions, would be a significant accomplishment. We _are prepared to continue the battle against civil unions by taking that case to the people and the legislature in each state._


 
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04C01


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> TAKE ACTION: Pray that the civil-unions law is overturned and that God would protect the institution of marriage in the other 49 states. For more information about how to protect your state, click *here*.
Click to expand...

Stand at the border and link arms (obviously, with a member of the opposite sex [and preferably one of your own kith and kin]) with another concerned citizen until we form a solid human chain around our glorious, God-given state, and keep these sub-humans out!


----------



## karuna

Everness said:


> Their complaint has to do with the attempt to change the nature of matrimony, a thousand-year-old social institution with deep roots in Judeo-Christian tradition.



Ah, now it becomes clear how the fundamental christians think. That was something new for me. Marriage institution is much older and more fundamental than that. It is not that the marriage has to be redefined but rather Christians have to broaden their views and knowledge. Basically marriage is the same everywhere in the world, be it Chinese, Indian or American. Christian marriage is not superior to other types of marriage.

Most married people in the world are not Christians. And to call those Hindu, Muslim, Shintoist, Pagan or Atheist marriages as "civil unions" would be insulting. Gay marriages may be something new in the history but really what is the difference? If they are able to establish the same intimate, mutually caring and emotional bond as straight couples do then why not let them have a legal aproval and what's wrong by calling it "a gay marriage".

I wouldn't call secularism the new religion. There need to be some fundamental obligations and morals for everyone be they religious or not. Religious communities can introduce stricter rules for their members but they cannot transgress those fundamental laws that are equal for all citizens. And we need more religious freedom, not less.


----------



## ElaineG

> Their complaint has to do with the attempt to change the nature of matrimony, a thousand-year-old social institution with deep roots in Judeo-Christian tradition.


 
In a case that has one of the easiest names for every law student to remember -- _Loving_ v. _Virginia_ (1967) -- the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's miscegenation laws that (like similar laws throughout much of the South) prohibited a white person from marrying "any save a white person."

Richard Loving (white) married Mildred Jeter (black) in defiance of that law.  The trial court judge sentenced Loving to a year in prison (although he kindly suspended the sentence on the condition that the couple leave the state for 25 years).  In so doing, he stated that the fact that God had originally place Black people in Africa and white people in Europe "shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

Whenever I hear about 1,000 year-old-traditions and the like in terms of gay marriage, I always think of _Loving_.  Interracial marriage was seen as equally "unnatural" just 40 years ago -- contemporary polls showed that over 70% of southern whites and 40% of northern whites supported the miscegenation laws.


----------



## ireney

Everness said:


> In other words, what conservative Christians might be saying is that they don’t want marriage to be redesigned or reinvented. “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why do you want to change it? If gays want to live together and have the same legal rights and responsibilities than straight people, they could always resort to civil unions.” Even straight couples could benefit from this arrangement and instead of getting married they would get "civil unioned." Down the road we could even extend the concept of civil unions to include any type of unions. You could have a legally sanctioned relationship with your dog, cat, favorite plant or tree, etc. etc.



Marriage, as those Christians define it is not re-defined or re-designed really. A marriage for a believer includes Church blessing and so on and so forth. This religious marriage no secular power can change. 
What is marriage in general has been redifined and redisigned a few times in this institution's history. I admit that this kind of change (same sex marriages) has not, to my knowledge, happened before but that's another issue. What constitutes a marriage is not set in stone.


Can you define "legally sanctioned relationship" in the last sentence of what I have quoted? I am a bit confused since you are legally "binded" to your dog for instance. It bites, you pay  i.e. and in some countries you also HAVE to not mistreat it, let it famished etc as far as I know.


----------



## ElaineG

> I admit that this kind of change (same sex marriages) has not, to my knowledge, happened before but that's another issue.


 
Well, that's a subject of great historical debate -- what significance should we put on the evidence of formal, societally recognized same-sex relationships in Greece, Rome, ancient China, medieval Europe, Native American society, etc. etc. etc.  

It's pretty clear that men have been loving men (and women loving women, but more out of sight, as women have been for most of history) since time began.  Societies have formalized (or criminalized) that behavior in different ways.

Some excerpts of Professor Eskridge's (a well-respected law professor) book on the subject are available -- _legally!_ -- online at: http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameexce.html.  If you are interested in the subject, this stuff makes fascinating reading.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Everness said:


> But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values* on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society?


Their rights to what, exactly? To not be offended?


> Their complaint has to do with the attempt to change the nature of matrimony


And they're offended by this notion, right? I mean, that's the only way it affects them as far as I can see because *nothing* would automatically change in regard to their personal marital relationships. So it must just be that they don't like the idea. Sorry, but the U.S. constitution doesn't guarantee a right not to be offended.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Kajjo said:


> Many laws and many decision of the goverment are dominated by religious believings when they should be neutral and secular.



To be fair, there are a lot of examples of courts ruling in the favor of people who are sueing on behalf of the 1st Amendment (for instance the case where a public school was sued for displaying a picture of Jesus). 

What examples do you have on government decisions based on religious beliefs? 

Christianity may be strong in America, but the freedom of religion is even stronger - don't let the small minority of "Christians" (like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly &c.) screaming for morals and values fool you.

Other than that, I absolutely agree with your post


----------



## Kajjo

Lemminkäinen said:


> To be fair, there are a lot of examples of courts ruling in the favor of people who are sueing on behalf of the 1st Amendment


Sorry, I do not know very much about the US  system. But as far as I read in European magazines, it appears that:

* praying and reading the bible in public schools does take place
* teaching creationism instead of or parallel to evolution does take place
* tax exemption of religious institution does take place
* sexual education and display of nakedness is partly banned due to religious reasons
* priests have special rights (e.g. as witness)
* there are several old state laws banning certain sexual practices, probably based on religious beliefs

I trust you that modern federal decisions are much more secular. I do not feel or claim that all that is actually bad, but it surely is an indication for an influence by Christian beliefs that exceeds that of other countries -- and which exceeds the limitations set by the constitution.

Kajjo


----------



## GenJen54

Lemminkäinen said:


> Christianity may be strong in America, but the freedom of religion is even stronger - don't let the small minority of "Christians" (like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly &c.) screaming for morals and values fool you.
> 
> Other than that, I absolutely agree with your post


 
The last time I checked, approximately 80% of the US population claims themselves to be "Christian."  I wouldn't exactly call that a minority.


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> *and display of nakedness is partly banned due to religious reasons


or just for moral, but non-religious, objections? Bad taste has more opponents than religion!


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> or just for moral, but non-religious, objections? Bad taste has more opponents than religion!


*laugh* You are absolutely right. I won't argue against that! 

Kajjo


----------



## ElaineG

Lest anyone doubt the scope of the Christian Right's objections to gay people and their relationships, an interesting recent current event:  

Condeleeza Rice referred to a gay man's partner's mother as his "mother-in-law".

The spokesman for the Family Research Council termed Rice's reference "_profoundly offensive_" and said that "for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners,_ is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act_." 
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/162006a.asp



> *Originally posted by Everness: *I think it’s a good compromise that should keep everyone happy.


 
That, among many other reasons, is why I am not interested in "compromising" with those people.  They won't be "kept happy" in a world where gay people and their relationships are treated with dignity and respect.


----------



## ireney

ElaineG said:


> Well, that's a subject of great historical debate -- what significance should we put on the evidence of formal, societally recognized same-sex relationships in Greece, Rome, ancient China, medieval Europe, Native American society, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> It's pretty clear that men have been loving men (and women loving women, but more out of sight, as women have been for most of history) since time began.  Societies have formalized (or criminalized) that behavior in different ways.
> 
> Some excerpts of Professor Eskridge's (a well-respected law professor) book on the subject are available -- _legally!_ -- online at: http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameexce.html.  If you are interested in the subject, this stuff makes fascinating reading.



Elaine I was talking about marriage not same sex relationships and how accepted they were or not. As far as I know same sex marriages is a new thing. Accepting same sex relations is not. 
In Ancient Greece for example marriage was between a man and a woman. Socrates rushed to marry a second, young wife, when Athenians got an "one time only" permission but that didn't stop him from having passionate (as I think) relationships with men as openly as you please. That's different that saying that they had same sex marriage. I could go on but I think I made what I meant clear.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

GenJen54 said:


> The last time I checked, approximately 80% of the US population claims themselves to be "Christian."  I wouldn't exactly call that a minority.



I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. I didn't talk about the majority of Christians, but the pundits of the religious right who blatantly disregard the vital pillars of their religion while preaching fire and brimstone based on a sentence or two from the Bible (or just from their political POV).
Apology for the misunderstanding 



Kajjo said:


> * praying and reading the bible in public schools does take place



Organized prayer and reading of the Bible is unconstitutional and have been struck down in the Supreme Court several times. Praying privately and voluntarily will, of course, be permitted.



> * teaching creationism instead of or parallel to evolution does take place



I think some school boards in Kansas have allowed Intelligent Design (creationism with pseudo-scientific terms) to be taught, but as far as I know it's not very widespread despite all the public discussion about it. 



> * tax exemption of religious institution does take place



True. Our state church also receives governmental funding, and I'm against that as well.



> * sexual education and display of nakedness is partly banned due to religious reasons



I don't think sex.ed. is banned - it's more that it's poorly taught several places (as it is here too, unfortunately). Also, a lot of schools allow students to opt out for religious reasons.
America is more prudish about nakedness than a lot of Europe, yes, and the FCC increasing potential fines for indecency is a good example of your point with religion playing part in governmental decisions.



> * priests have special rights (e.g. as witness)



I don't know anything about that, so it may well be true.



> * there are several old state laws banning certain sexual practices, probably based on religious beliefs



True, I think there are still states where sodomy is illegal, but after the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, I think you'd be hard-pressed to be able to enforce them.


I apologise for the long post, and hope that there's at least something informative in it


----------



## ElaineG

> Elaine I was talking about marriage not same sex relationships and how accepted they were or not. As far as I know same sex marriages is a new thing.


 
But that was exactly the point of my earlier post, that's just not true, or at least, many historians question that assertion! There _have been_ different levels of formality of treatment of these relationships throughout and history, and _some seem to have been marriages to all intents and purposes._  I can't say for sure, because I wasn't there -- it's all based on how you interpret the historical record. From the book I linked to earlier, on same sex marriages in the ancient world:



> The best documented are the same-sex marriages of Rome's emperors. Roman historian Suetonius reported, disapprovingly, that the first-century emperor Nero "went through a wedding ceremony with [Sporus]-dowry, bridal veil and all-which the whole Court attended; then brought him home and treated him as a wife. He dressed Sporus in fine clothes normally worn by an Empress and took him in his own litter not only to every Greek assize and fair, but actually through the Street of Images at Rome, kissing him amorously now and then." .


 
That book and many others, including the work of  the late Yale historian John Boswell, detail much of the historical evidence of same-sex marriages.

There ain't nothing new under the sun!


----------



## ireney

Elaine I will have to read on the book you linked at, but Nero's case is NOT a good example if you ask me (although I do realise we might be getting a bit off topic here)


----------



## ElaineG

Here's an interesting article on the history of same-sex marriage (including ancient China) in the non-European world: http://www.colorq.org/Articles/2004/ssmarriage.htm


----------



## cuchuflete

I haven't the slightest interest in compromising with bigots who would take their viewpoint and shove it down my throat.  If they are made uncomfortable by minorities whose thoughts and actions are different from their own, that is their own discomfort, and of no concern to me.  My concern is the attempt at tyranny by a bunch of extremists who claim majority status, though they really just represent their own extremism.

Those so-called fundamentalists must have extraordinarily weak commitments to matrimony if they are so easily shaken by what others—in different matrimonial relationships—may do.  




			
				Everness said:
			
		

> I’m just trying to look at things from the perspective of Christian conservatives: how they feel affected by this development. I’m sure that if they could, fundamentalists and evangelicals in the US would ban homosexuality in all its forms and expressions: individual, familial, group and societal. And then they would ban atheists, and then agnostics, and then Roman Catholics, and then Jews, and then Bahai, and then Muslims, and then LDSs, and then Cherokees....and it would never end until the only survivors were Christian conservatives.   No thank you.   But that’s not what they are worried about right now. Deep down they know that there are things that can’t be effectively legislated. Their complaint has to do with the attempt to change the nature of matrimony, Nobody is attempting to change matrimony as practised by Christian conservatives.  They are welcome to do what they please within their own family units.   a thousand-year-old social institution with deep roots in Judeo-Christian tradition As well noted by others, matrimony doesn't belong only to that tradition, and it has a range of cultural meanings and customs that vary greatly among US and other citizens.  One size does not fit all. It’s important to note that they are reacting to *gay marriage *but not to *gay civil unions*.  That is a flat untruth!



The auto analogy doesn't work.  We are not talking about forcing a single 4 seater owner out of their car.  We are proposing that 4 passenger vehicles should not be the only ones allowed on the road.  

I drive a manual.  Others prefer automatic transmissions.  Why should this be an issue, except to the paranoid whiners who can't stand seeing anything different from what they are accustomed to?  Now you can buy a clutchless manual, and some even have shifter paddles on the steering wheel.  So what!  I'm not bothered, much less threatened, by other people having different ways of driving.  

I have inlaws in a commited homosexual relationship. Their "agenda" is to live their own lives, and let others do likewise. They are not in the least bothered by my heterosexuality, nor I by their homosexuality.  We have distinct family units that in no way threaten one another.  

May all the pseudo-christian conservatives who would force other cars off the road enjoy many flat tires, blown head gaskets, and timing belt failures.  Maybe they will get so dyspeptic that they will give up driving entirely, and retreat to their horses and buggies.  Then they can argue about what color horses are properly moral.


----------



## JamesM

Since this has now become a "gay marriage" discussion, more than anything, I'd like to add my two cents.

I think the question is - is marriage a civil or religious office?  In the U.S. we have an overlap of these two things.  In many countries they don't.  There is both a civil marriage and a religious marriage, not necessarily happening on the same day and in the same place.

I am a Christian.  I can understand the concern of those who see the institution of marriage from a religious standpoint being altered because of changes on the civil side.  The "tug-and-pull" happens because the institution is doubly defined.  I think it is this "overlapping" that causes the problem.

If we were to separate the two functions I think everyone would be have the opportunity to be satisfied with the situation.  Have all couples, gay or straight, register a civil union with the state.  Have religious institutions determine who they will or will not marry in a religious ceremony.  

It is to me yet another example of the separation of church and state.  As far as whether a gay couple calls themselves "married" or not, I think that's a rather insignificant issue.  It's simply a word to describe a state of union that is no more or less temporary than a heterosexual union, in my observation.


----------



## ampurdan

The civil name is "marriage". So, I don't see any reason why I should not use this word to refer to heterosexual and homosexual married couples. Marriage has never been only a religious institution. Besides, it is mainly a secular one. 

In my opinion, words do matter, when we use different words for the same thing. If we said that the work men do out of home is "a job" and what women do is "entertainment", even though that these two words were referring to the same reality, I think anyone could understand women's complaint.


----------



## geve

Everness said:


> It all boils down to what’s in a name. Gay rights wouldn’t be compromised at all. They should enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities.





ampurdan said:


> The civil name is "marriage". So, I don't see any reason why I should not use this word to refer to heterosexual and homosexual married couples. Marriage has never been only a religious institution. Besides, it is mainly a secular one.


Agreed. Maybe the religious people ought to rename _their_ version of marriage, and define as pleases them who is allowed to "undergo" this form of union and who is not, without the secular society interfering in the process.


----------



## JamesM

ampurdan said:


> The civil name is "marriage". So, I don't see any reason why I should not use this word to refer to heterosexual and homosexual married couples. Marriage has never been only a religious institution. Besides, it is mainly a secular one.


 
I agree with you on the use of the word "marriage".  If you were left with the impression that I did not, I apologize.  I see no reason why gay couples cannot call themselves married.  

Whether it is mainly a secular institution really depends on your point of view and your beliefs, I think.   It does have secular ramifications (legal obligations, privileges, etc.).  I think that's why a separation of the two processes would make sense.  

The purpose of marriage, as the law recognizes it, has shifted over time.  This is perhaps a time of change for the legal definition again.  Since the purpose of marriage for many centuries was considered to include the procreation of the next generation, men could legally divorce their wives simply for not bearing children.  That has changed.  

I wish that those who are enraged by the extreme rhetoric of certain groups who claim to represent the average Christian in the U.S. would realize that there are many, many reasonable, rational Christians in the U.S. who do not consider these groups to be representing them at all.  It is as lamentable a mistake to lump all Christians based on the rhetoric of these extremists as it is to lump all Muslims based on the rhetoric of certain Muslim extremists.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

JamesM said:


> I wish that those who are enraged by the extreme rhetoric of certain groups who claim to represent the average Christian in the U.S. would realize that there are many, many reasonable, rational Christians in the U.S. who do not consider these groups to be representing them at all.  It is as lamentable a mistake to lump all Christians based on the rhetoric of these extremists as it is to lump all Muslims based on the rhetoric of certain Muslim extremists.



Just to be sure, I hope this wasn't directed at me or my comments. I agree with all of your post as well as this quoted part, and it was essentially what I was trying to say.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, I for one did not want to imply that all Christians are extremists. In fact, I haven't mentioned them and I don't want to focus on Christians. Some other religions also have intransigent views on the issue. 

I think that State can take into account that marriage has religious aspects for many people, but what must be regulated are the civil and social aspects of "marriage". When I say that it is mainly a social instituion I do not mean that that is what I believe, but what I think the general trend in society is and also what marriage was in ancient cultures (where I think that it was not more sacred than eating). Of course, anyone is free to think that it is mainly a religious event.

What's relevant here, I think, is that there is a legal institution that is called marriage or matrimony, which couples have used to share their lives and shield a family and that some homosexual couples need this shield too.


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> A national organization of family values activists joined Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and more than 1,000 local churchgoers on Sunday to argue to evangelicals that the legalization of same-sex marriage here is threatening religious liberty throughout the country. Here's the full article.
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...p_to_rally_opposition_to_gay_marriage/?page=1
> 
> I was interested in what Brett Clifton, assistant director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University, said,
> 
> "The Family Research Council is an important focus for conservative Christians, and these events are really effective at rallying their base. *They are trying to rally people around the idea that religious people have rights too, and that government and society have grown increasingly secular and anti religious.*"
> 
> Could conservatives have a point? We argue that we shouldn't impose *religious values* on a whole society. For instance, conservatives believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gay marriage should be outlawed. Some of us counterargue that we shouldn't impose our religious values on the rest of society, especially those who don't share that belief. But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values* on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society? Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious? Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?


I often think that this is true, that secularism has become the new state religion, especially here in New Zealand,  - instead of the ideal, strict neutrality... 

_But any other religion as the state one, would be just as bad..._


----------



## geve

Victoria32 said:


> I often think that this is true, that secularism has become the new state religion, especially here in New Zealand, - instead of the ideal, strict neutrality...
> 
> _But any other religion as the state one, would be just as bad..._


I was really suprised by this comment, and then I realized that I hadn't understood the implication of the world "secularism" that is in the title of this thread!!
I had thought of it as the equivalent of the French word "laïcisme" which the TLFi defines as _"a doctrine that excludes religion from all public institutions"._ Whereas the WRD defines "secularism" as _"a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations"._ See what's missing?

How would we define "neutrality" anyway? To not impose any religion on anyone? Or to accept everyone's religion? It seems to me that the latter (include every existing religion in public institutions) would be a lot harder to achieve than the former (not let religion interfere with public institutions)... which is what secularism means for me.


----------



## .   1

I think that the WRD definition may need a little tweaking.
This definition of secularism is potentially divisive.
I believe that secularism is not linked to a rejection of religion but to the important separation of politics and religion.
I have a nominally secular government where many high ranking ministers are also high ranking members of religious groups.
The secular aspect is designed to ensure that politicians belonging to religious groups are hindered in the way that they can promote their religion in a political sense.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> I think that the WRD definition may need a little tweaking.
> This definition of secularism is potentially divisive.
> I believe that secularism is not linked to a rejection of religion but to the important separation of politics and religion.
> I have a nominally secular government where many high ranking ministers are also high ranking members of religious groups.
> The secular aspect is designed to ensure that politicians belonging to religious groups are hindered in the way that they can promote their religion in a political sense.
> 
> .,,


 
"Secular" and "secularism" are two different words.  

www.m-w.com defines secularism as:

"indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations"

I don't think the WR dictionary is off.


----------



## Everness

Victoria32 said:


> I often think that this is true, that secularism has become the new state religion, especially here in New Zealand,  - instead of the ideal, strict neutrality...
> 
> _But any other religion as the state one, would be just as bad..._



Maybe a couple of definitions are warranted. Wikipedia draws a distinction between *secularization *and *secularism*.

_Secularization or secularisation is a process of transformation as a society slowly migrates from close identification with the local institutions of religion to a more clearly separated relationship. It is a contentious term because the concept of secularization can be confused with secularism, a philosophical and political movement that promotes the idea that society benefits by being less religious._http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization

*Secularization *is embraced by most Christians, even by Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in the US and indisputably fundamentalist and evangelical in nature! Southern Baptists' two main beliefs when it comes to social ethics are the separation of church and state and freedom of conscience. In other words, you can be a hardcore Christian fundamentalist --at least in the US-- while embracing secularization. Many secularists have counted themselves among the religious. 

But *secularism *is another story. As the above definition states, it's "a philosophical and political movement that promotes that society benefits by being less religious." It's not only freedom *of* religion but freedom *from *religion. This is what conservative Christians, I think, are denouncing. A new dogmatic religion is surfacing.  Secularism becomes a social ideology in which religion and supernatural beliefs are not seen as the key to understanding the world. Science, reason, and naturalistic thinking have replaced faith in God or trascendental values.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> A new dogmatic religion is surfacing.


  You did have to sneak that in, amidst the linguistic hairsplitting.

It is not true.  It may be your heartfelt opinion, but it is not true.   

The conservative "Christians" you describe want to impose their viewpoints and lifestyles and holier-than-thou values on other people, by governmental actions and laws, or by social ostracism, or by whatever means they can find.  They are the very provocation of secularism, as you define it.  I am perfectly content with a strict separation of church and state, but in the face of those who would force their ways on everybody, I certainly want freedom from *their* religion.
That is not the same thing as advocating freedom from all religion.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> You did have to sneak that in, amidst the linguistic hairsplitting.



This is what conservative religious people are saying. The following reflections, entitled "The religion of secularism," were written by a Rabbi. http://www.koshertorah.com/PDF/secularism.pdf


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> You did have to sneak that in, amidst the linguistic hairsplitting.
> 
> It is not true. It may be your heartfelt opinion, but it is not true.
> 
> The conservative "Christians" you describe want to impose their viewpoints and lifestyles and holier-than-thou values on other people, by governmental actions and laws, or by social ostracism, or by whatever means they can find. They are the very provocation of secularism, as you define it. I am perfectly content with a strict separation of church and state, but in the face of those who would force their ways on everybody, I certainly want freedom from *their* religion.
> That is not the same thing as advocating freedom from all religion.


 
You certainly have a way of speaking with fire, Cuchuflete.    I think it's important to keep this in a historical perspective, though.  Historically, the laws of the state in the U.S. have been very much in line with Christian beliefs.  The laws are being changed now, or being considered for changes.

The reaction by these "conservative Christians", as you're calling them (who do not represent all Christians, nor even all conservative Christians) is to changing it to a new standard.  From their point of view, the Marriage Alliance, or whatever it is called, is working to maintain a status quo, not to impose anything new.  To characterize this as "imposing their viewpoints" only works if you then say that the law has been "imposing its viewpoint" for a few hundred years already.  

Can you tone down the rhetoric a bit for the sake of discussion?


----------



## Victoria32

geve said:


> I was really suprised by this comment, and then I realized that I hadn't understood the implication of the world "secularism" that is in the title of this thread!!
> I had thought of it as the equivalent of the French word "laïcisme" which the TLFi defines as _"a doctrine that excludes religion from all public institutions"._ Whereas the WRD defines "secularism" as _"a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations"._ See what's missing?
> 
> How would we define "neutrality" anyway? To not impose any religion on anyone? Or to accept everyone's religion? It seems to me that the latter (include every existing religion in public institutions) would be a lot harder to achieve than the former (not let religion interfere with public institutions)... which is what secularism means for me.


It's difficult... I am talking only about New Zealand here, but the attitude of Government and media seems not to be neutral, but instead to privilege secularism above all other views. (The media especially!)
No, I don't mean to say neutrality requires accepting all relgions, but talking _secularism_ as a  religion, which in _extreme_ cases it can be in all but name, it seems to me to be privileged above all other points of view.


----------



## cuchuflete

You are correct James.  Those same Christian beliefs that have long been a comfortable parallel for many secular laws once included slavery, lack of universal suffrage, and then  segregation.  Both Christian beliefs and secular laws progressed and advanced towards their respective ideals. They generally stayed in parallel.

Conservatives, by definition, try to maintain the _status quo_.
That footdragging may slow change, but will not restrain it forever. Sometimes restraint is a good thing, sometimes it's just obstructionism in the service of maintenance of past errors.  

I'm not the one calling such obstructionists "conservative Christians".  That's a direct quote from Everness.  Please note that I have also called the more extreme among them "pseudo-christians".  I fully agree with you that such people are not representative of most Christians in the US.  
Most Christians I know want nothing to do with such extreme hostility to social evolution.  The same is true of the substantial minority of Americans who profess no allegiance to any form of Christianity.  

If my tone strikes you as heated, it is because I see those Everness quotes and misquotes as a dangerous minority that represents neither most Christians, nor a huge majority of non-Christians, and yet would prevent other citizens from extricating themselves from historical errors and prejudice. They would lead us bravely into the past.

While I defend the rights of the FRC and its supporters to practice their religion as they see fit in their own communities and homes, I perceive them as pernicious bigots and strenuously oppose their efforts to enforce their ways on others.  The FRC makes no secret of its role as a lobbying organization that seeks to both propose and influence legislation with the open intent of imposing its will on all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs.  That is no defense of religious freedom.  






JamesM said:


> Historically, the laws of the state in the U.S. have been very much in line with Christian beliefs.  The laws are being changed now, or being considered for changes.
> 
> 
> 
> The reaction by these "conservative Christians", as you're calling them (who do not represent all Christians, nor even all conservative Christians) is to changing it to a new standard.  From their point of view, the Marriage Alliance, or whatever it is called, is working to maintain a status quo, not to impose anything new.  To characterize this as "imposing their viewpoints" only works if you then say that the law has been "imposing its viewpoint" for a few hundred years already.
> 
> Can you tone down the rhetoric a bit for the sake of discussion?


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> But *secularism *is another story. As the above definition states, it's "a philosophical and political movement that promotes that society benefits by being less religious." It's not only freedom *of* religion but freedom *from *religion. This is what conservative Christians, I think, are denouncing. A new dogmatic religion is surfacing.  Secularism becomes a social ideology in which religion and supernatural beliefs are not seen as the key to understanding the world. Science, reason, and naturalistic thinking have replaced faith in God or trascendental values.



There are two ways to read the sentence I have highlighted.
I choose to see the conservative Christians as the new dogmatic religion.
Blind to the real world; demanding strict adherence, not to the words of their scriptures, but to their particular interpretation of them; often at odds with the words of Jesus - remember the bits "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love."; and demanding that the laws of nations be brought into line with their thinking, regardless of how this might affect those who believe in other Gods.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Conservatives, by definition, try to maintain the _status quo_.
> That footdragging may slow change, but will not restrain it forever. Sometimes restraint is a good thing, sometimes it's just obstructionism in the service of maintenance of past errors.
> 
> I'm not the one calling such obstructionists "conservative Christians".  That's a direct quote from Everness.  Please note that I have also called the more extreme among them "pseudo-christians".  I fully agree with you that such people are not representative of most Christians in the US.
> Most Christians I know want nothing to do with such extreme hostility to social evolution.  The same is true of the substantial minority of Americans who profess no allegiance to any form of Christianity.



Although you apparently believe that marriage as a social institution should evolve, that doesn’t mean that it necessarily should. That’s your opinion and could be shared by many others. But it’s just that: an opinion as good as the opinion of those who think that the definition of marriage shouldn’t change. Are “footdragging” or “maintaining the status quo” (using your own words) always something undesirable? Should everything necessarily evolve? Are there some social institutions that could and should remain the same for the next couple of millenniums? For thousands of years marriage between a man and a woman has served us pretty well. Why change things? 

Another thought. If you don't want to tell people what to do or not to do under their own roofs, why should we open the door to matrimony just to gays and lesbians? If we want to be consistent in our pursuit of non-discriminatory practices, we should allow anyone to marry anyone or anything. For instance, a straight guy could marry a straight guy and a straight gal could marry a straight gal. Polygamy should also be legalized. If someone watched HBO’s “Big Love” and he still wants to live with more than 1 wife under the same roof, well… good luck but I won't get in his way or in the way of a woman who is willing to share his guy with other gals. I'll make sure that we change our current legislation to decriminalize polygamy. Why? I don’t have any right to impose my monogamic understanding of marriage on him or her. Down the road, a human being could marry other members of the animal kingdom or even a tree or a plant. I know that some people have sex with their favorite pets and they don’t want their behavior to be dubbed as bestialism. But if they aren’t married, that would amount to adultery, right? Because I don’t want to carry that type of guilt on my shoulders, I would suggest that we allow people to marry animals too. If the new legislation doesn’t rule out these possibilities, there is no legal or rational basis not to allow anyone to marry anyone or anything. But if the legislation rules those possibilities out, you will be discriminating against some minority group for sure.


----------



## cuchuflete

Before I get to the material below, let's see if we can return to the thread topic for just a moment.  Those you call "conservative Christians" and their political lobbying arm have stated that legalization of marriage for gay people will limit religious freedom.

Logically, that is utter hogwash.   Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage.  No religion in that state has lost the right to
(1)exist
(2)practice its rites and rituals
(3)preach what it pleases
(4)proselytize

Just what "freedoms" have been constrained, and how?

No member of any religion has been required by law or custom to engage in any marriage.  No religion has had its tax benefits lifted.  No group of people wanting to found a new religion have been enjoined from doing so.  No government agency has meddled with the theology of any religion.  No religious person has been obligated to agree with the purpose or the wording of the law that permits homosexual marriage—people are free to condemn it and to campaign for its repeal.

There has been absolutely no reduction in religious freedom.

If you honestly believe that your religious freedom, or that of any other person, has been affected, please detail precisely which freedom has been eliminated, and how.



Everness said:


> Although you apparently believe that marriage as a social institution should evolve, that doesn’t mean that it necessarily should. That’s your opinion and could be shared by many others. But it’s just that: an opinion as good as the opinion of those who think that the definition of marriage shouldn’t change. We agree on that.  Are “footdragging” or “maintaining the status quo” (using your own words) always something undesirable? *Please read my post.  I already answered that question very clearly. *
> 
> Should everything necessarily evolve? Are there some social institutions that could and should remain the same for the next couple of millenniums? For thousands of years marriage between a man and a woman has served us pretty well.   US?  Well, some of us have been served by it, while others have been excluded from the servicing.  Why change things?
> Because, as we have discussed at great length in other threads, the nature of marriage has already evolved considerably over the centuries, and today has legal and financial aspects it didn't have in the past.  Today, to give but one small example, people can marry legally, with no recourse to any religious commitment or entanglement.  The consequences, for better and worse, are in the arenas of taxation, inheritance rights, medical decisions, and other matters between a citizen and the state.  No intervention by clergy is required, and there are no religious implications for those who choose a civil marriage without a religious union.



I haven't called for any redefinition of the essence of civil marriage.  It is a legal bond, with financial and tax and medical effects.  I would simply apply the exact same laws to more of the population, exactly as has been done in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  

Religious groups are, of course, welcome to maintain current definitions and eligibility, or broaden them, or narrow them.  They may define marriage however they see fit.  If a religion has a more narrow definition than the state, there is no conflict.  If your religion teaches you that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples over the age of thirty, and that the wife must obey her husband, that's your business and none of mine.  

If your religion has evolved just a little, and has dropped the traditional "obey" from the marriage vows of a woman, I think that's nice, but it's still really none of my business. If, however, your religion tries to tell me that I must practice the customs of your religion, I will assert my right to tell you that you ought to tend to your knitting, and keep your religion to yourself.  Then we can both go out, as the FRC has done, and lobby lawmakers for our respective viewpoints.


----------



## JamesM

> They may define marriage however they see fit. If a religion has a more narrow definition than the state, there is no conflict.


 
Everness brings up an interesting point, though, Cuchuflete, that I don't hear you addressing.  What if you have a broader definition than the state (which is essentially the position you're taking on gay marriage)?  Why should polygamy be illegal?  Why should marriage to an underage child (the definition of which varies from state to state) be illegal?

In other words, how broad do you grow the circle, and by what standard do you determine the point past which you will not grow the circle to encompass a group?

(As for the religious liberties issue, I think that's a red herring, personally, a shibboleth to instill fear.  I agree that I cannot see any religious liberties that are curtailed by allowing gays to marry.  So please take this in the spirit in which it is offered -- a sincere question for discussion purposes.)


----------



## ampurdan

I think it's not only about not telling people what to do, Everness, it's about letting people enjoy rights on equal terms. 

Your slippery slope argument does not work with animals. People marry because that's their will. We have few and unreliable means to ascertain animal's will, when they have one. We should discuss poligamy in another thread, but what I find abominable in it it's just the unfair balance it creates, if it was balanced and it provided more than two people a way to share their life, I don't see any problem right now.

Nothing of the above mentioned issues affects by any means anybody else's rights, including the religious ones, no matter how loud and how many times anybody wants to repeat this nonsense speech. So, there is no situation in which the State should mediate.


----------



## .   1

There are some interesting views being proposed here.
I am glad that people are not trying to insult homosexual people by comparing the bonding of consenting adults with consenting adults and the bonding of adults with children or adults with an animal or a plant.
If this thread is going to degenerate into yet another sexuality based marriage question would it be possible to at least confine the discussion to that between consenting human adults.
The whole 'thin end of the wedge' argument becomes tiresome.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

I didn't address that point, James, because the state prevails when there is a conflict.   If a religion advocates things the state does not accept, then the religion is constrained.
The US constitution includes, in the first amendment,
"_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof._"

However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 'free exercise' portion refers to beliefs, and that some actions may be restricted.  

Without getting into the examples you cite in detail, they would, if advocated by a religion,  appear to be conflicts with the state, and hence would not be allowed.  Today, I see no such constraints of religion in the marriage laws of any of the 50 states, while one, Massachusetts, has a law that is broader than that of some religions.  




JamesM said:


> Everness brings up an interesting point, though, Cuchuflete, that I don't hear you addressing.  What if you have a broader definition than the state (which is essentially the position you're taking on gay marriage)?  Why should polygamy be illegal?  Why should marriage to an underage child (the definition of which varies from state to state) be illegal?
> 
> In other words, how broad do you grow the circle, and by what standard do you determine the point past which you will not grow the circle to encompass a group?
> 
> (As for the religious liberties issue, I think that's a red herring, personally, a shibboleth to instill fear.  I agree that I cannot see any religious liberties that are curtailed by allowing gays to marry.  So please take this in the spirit in which it is offered -- a sincere question for discussion purposes.)


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> I didn't address that point, James, because the state prevails when there is a conflict. If a religion advocates things the state does not accept, then the religion is constrained.
> The US constitution includes, in the first amendment,
> "_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof._"
> 
> However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 'free exercise' portion refers to beliefs, and that some actions may be restricted.
> 
> Without getting into the examples you cite in detail, they would, if advocated by a religion, appear to be conflicts with the state, and hence would not be allowed. Today, I see no such constraints of religion in the marriage laws of any of the 50 states, while one, Massachusetts, has a law that is broader than that of some religions.


 
(Utah's laws forbid polygamy, while Mormons [and I don't mean just fringe groups] still practice it.  This is a constraint of religion by law, but that's a separate discussion.)

Setting aside religion, though, since you consider it something that should not be the basis of the state's laws, what do you use as the point at which you draw the line between what is legal and what is not?  What is the basis for polygamy being illegal?

I believe this applies directly to the discussion because the reasons for it being illegal may or may not also apply in the case of gay marriage.


----------



## cuchuflete

Those are topics for another thread.  (If you open such a discussion, I'm sure there will be no lack of participants.)

This one, supposedly, is about whether legalization of homosexual marriage infringes on freedom of religion.  It doesn't.  It may be deemed offensive by some religions, just as some religious ideas are deemed offensive to some religions, non-practioners and/or the state.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> Those are topics for another thread. (If you open such a discussion, I'm sure there will be no lack of participants.)
> 
> This one, supposedly, is about whether legalization of homosexual marriage infringes on freedom of religion. It doesn't. It may be deemed offensive by some religions, just as some religious ideas are deemed offensive to some religions, non-practioners and/or the state.


 
I don't read the original post to say that this thread is about legalization of homosexual marraige infringing on freedom of religion.  That was the example, but that was not the question.  The question involved secularization of society and whether this group had a point that society was employing secularism as a new religion.  My questions have to do with what standards, if not religion, are to be used to determine the legality of certain relationships in light of secularization.

Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes, then.


----------



## cuchuflete

The amount of text devoted to gay marriage may have led me to overemphasize that.  Sorry.

Here is what appears to be the topic:



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values* on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society? Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious? Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?



Taking that in small bites:

_But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values*
on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society?   Simply, NO, because allowing for something does not impose it.  Further, the role of government is to codify secular, not religious, values.  While those secular and religious value often share much common ground, there is no requirement that they do so.  


 Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious?_Again, NO, because the laws of the state do not require any change in the practice of any religion.  They allow for actions beyond what some religions teach, but without imposing any requirements on those religions.
The state has always allowed agnosticism and atheism.  That is not an anti-religious posture.  The state allows for a multitude of religions whose doctrines are often contradictory, and that is not anti-religious either. The state allows for indifference to religion.  That state allows one to abandon one religion and adopt a different one.   The question implies, wrongly, that if the state allows for something that some religion doesn't accept, that such an allowance is anti-religious.   

_Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?
That question has been addressed._


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> The amount of text devoted to gay marriage may have led me to overemphasize that. Sorry.
> 
> Here is what appears to be the topic:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking that in small bites:
> 
> _But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values*_
> _on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society? Simply, NO, because allowing for something does not impose it. Further, the role of government is to codify secular, not religious, values. While those secular and religious value often share much common ground, there is no requirement that they do so. _
> 
> 
> _Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious?_Again, NO, because the laws of the state do not require any change in the practice of any religion. They allow for actions beyond what some religions teach, but without imposing any requirements on those religions.
> The state has always allowed agnosticism and atheism. That is not an anti-religious posture. The state allows for a multitude of religions whose doctrines are often contradictory, and that is not anti-religious either. The state allows for indifference to religion. That state allows one to abandon one religion and adopt a different one. The question implies, wrongly, that if the state allows for something that some religion doesn't accept, that such an allowance is anti-religious.
> 
> _Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?_
> _That question has been addressed._


 
I agree with all your answers, except for whether secularism is becoming the new state religion.  I'm not sure that has been adequately addressed in this thread.  

Everything else, though, makes perfect sense to me and I agree wholeheartedly, which may surprise you, since I have declared myself to be a Christian in this thread.  I think that separation of Church and State is one of the most powerful concepts in the U.S. Constitution.  It is healthy both for the state and the church, in my estimation.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> I agree with all your answers, except for whether secularism is becoming the new state religion.  I'm not sure that has been adequately addressed in this thread.
> 
> Everything else, though, makes perfect sense to me and I agree wholeheartedly, which may surprise you, since I have declared myself to be a Christian in this thread.  I think that separation of Church and State is one of the most powerful concepts in the U.S. Constitution.  It is healthy both for the state and the church, in my estimation.



You don't surprise me at all.  Most Christians support separation of church and state, for precisely the very sound reasons you have given.  Those who would have a theocracy are a horse of a different color.  (I obviously don't care for that breed of livestock.)


----------



## ElaineG

Everness said:


> For thousands of years marriage between a man and a woman has served us pretty well. Why change things?


 


JamesM said:


> Why should polygamy be illegal? Why should marriage to an underage child (the definition of which varies from state to state) be illegal?


 
Well, under Everness's "thousands of years" standard both polygamy and child-marriage should be permissible, since both those practices were common, if not predominant, throughout most of recorded history.

If someone has a problem with one of those concepts, maybe it suggests that "thousands of years" is not the best standard.

I'm interested that no one (i.e., Everness) opposing so-called evolution of the institution of marriage has addressed my post on _Loving_ v. _Virginia_ and misceganation laws. What was considered right, natural, and in keeping with thousands of years of traditional marriage has already undergone an enormous legal and cultural change in the last 40 years.

Child marriage and animal and plant marriage are so laughable as to annoy me that people who would be taken seriously put them forward as arguments. It is a basic tenet of our jurisprudence that only those with the _capacity_ to perform certain legal acts are permitted by the State to perform them. You may argue that those limits are arbitrary (one 15 year old may be old enough to marry/make their own decisions concerning medical care/vote/fight in the Army/drink/get a driver's license etc. etc. etc., while some individual 22 year old is not) but those limits are accepted as foundational premise of the State, and no sane person would argue that an 8 year old or a dog has the _capacity_ to enter into any kind of binding contract, no less one with the profound legal consequences of matrimony.

As for polygamy, I personally have no problem with it, and it is hard to see a _moral_ objection to it that is not _religiously _based. However, much of the _civil_ structure of marriage (tax laws, inheritance laws, testimonial privileges, custody laws, divorce laws, community property laws, benefits laws, etc. etc.) are built around a two-person framework. You can make a perfectly rational argument that the state can choose to concede benefits to groups of two but no larger, given the enormous cost and effort involved in restructuring all that law, regulations and practice to apply to groups of "more than two." None of that should, however, prevent polygamous groups from living as if married, as they do.


----------



## cuchuflete

I had hoped to avoid the polygamy topic, but two people have now stated that it exists, and one has theorized about making it legal.  So, here is a simple question:

Given that polygamy is practised by some people, why don't the FRC and its fellow travellers get all hot and bothered that this, too, is an attack on religion? It's against the law in every locality, but that doesn't prevent it from being a secular choice.  The LDS Church has forbidden it for many decades, so it cannot be labelled as part of that religion.  

I suggest that a homosexual polygamous relationship would get the FRC's knickers in a real twist, but so long as it's limited to heterosexuals, they are content to seek other targets.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> I had hoped to avoid the polygamy topic, but two people have now stated that it exists, and one has theorized about making it legal. So, here is a simple question:
> 
> Given that polygamy is practised by some people, why don't the FRC and its fellow travellers get all hot and bothered that this, too, is an attack on religion? It's against the law in every locality, but that doesn't prevent it from being a secular choice. The LDS Church has forbidden it for many decades, so it cannot be labelled as part of that religion.
> 
> I suggest that a homosexual polygamous relationship would get the FRC's knickers in a real twist, but so long as it's limited to heterosexuals, they are content to seek other targets.


 
Is this a serious question? I can't quite tell. It sounds more like an attack on the FRC. Are you really asking us to speculate on the reasons that the FRC chose homosexual marriage as the topic, other than the most obvious fact that it is now being considered for legalization in multiple states (while polygamy is not)? 

I suspect it's just the sound of some steam being blown off.  If I'm wrong, let me know.


----------



## cuchuflete

It was only half tongue in cheek.  I just spent some time reading the FRC site.  In addition to stating flatly that carbon dioxide has little, if anything, to do with global warming, and isn't worth the trouble of controlling, the obvious homophobia in their pages makes me wonder who they will call a threat to religious freedom tomorrow.


PS- Still waiting for anyone to connect the dots, and tell us how *any *form of marriage limits religious freedom.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Or how anyone *else's *form of marriage circumscribes one's own marriage.


----------



## JamesM

I think the primary shift that is occurring that is fundamentally disturbing (no pun intended) to many people is the shift from the image of us being a Christian country to the image of us being a country composed primarily of Christians.   The overlap in the past has blurred the line between Church and State and people were content to have the line somewhat blurry.  In some ways under the current administration this line is getting blurred more than in the previous administration.   

I say that the U.S. is not a Christian country; that is, it does not have Christianity as its official religion. (Now don't get me off into whether we are a theistic country or not; that's a whole different topic.   )   I personally think that not being a Christian country is a good thing, both for Christians in this country and for the country itself.  However, for many people there has been an assumption that we are.   It's an easy assumption to make - easier to make in some parts of the country where the overwhelming majority of people you interact with on a daily basis are church-going Christians.  

When an issue comes up that casts this difference in sharp relief and is seen as a dividing line between being a Christian country and not a Christian country, it is profoundly disturbing to anyone who has lived with an image of their country as a Christian country.   It is a very visceral, emotional reaction.  It shakes people up.  

You may well say, "Good! They should be shaken up!", but if you can set aside any personal emotions about the issue for a moment, I think it can be seen that much of what a group like FRC is doing is not intellectual plotting or well-reasoned objections, it's an emotional response to something that does damage at a very emotional level.  People driven by emotions say and do things that are regrettable, no matter what their position is on the matter - for or against.  It's a human thing.  We all do it.  To react with an equal but opposite emotional attack doesn't actually assist in resolving the matter, but we do it anyway.  It's also a human thing.  It's the basis of feuds.  

If we're actually interested in understanding the motivations of a group like FRC, we have to look at what they think they are defending, and then understand what they are actually defending.  It may appear to be "religious liberty" to them, but the argument doesn't hold up under examination.   I think they are defending a cherished image of their country that is being done serious damage by the issue of gay marriage even being raised, much less legislated.  In the country they picture, such a discussion would not even come up.

To me, the fundamental issue is this issue of whether we are a Christian country or a country composed primarily of Christians.  It has never been challenged in the past to the degree that it is now.  The appeal of George W. Bush to many, many people is his firm belief that we are a Christian country.  Personally, I don't think it's warranted by our Constitution, but it is a traditional interpretation that people have lived with for generations.  It is not easily unseated.


----------



## .   1

TrentinaNE said:


> Or how anyone *else's *form of marriage circumscribes one's own marriage.


Very well said.
Legalisation is a long way from compulsion.
Homosexual marriage has uttely no effect on heterosexual marriage.

.,,


----------



## Everness

> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete *
> Because, as we have discussed at great length in other threads, the nature of marriage has already evolved considerably over the centuries, and today has legal and financial aspects it didn't have in the past.





ElaineG said:


> Well, under Everness's "thousands of years" standard both polygamy and child-marriage should be permissible, since both those practices were common, if not predominant, throughout most of recorded history.
> 
> If someone has a problem with one of those concepts, maybe it suggests that "thousands of years" is not the best standard.



How much has marriage evolved over the centuries? Have polygamy and child-marriage been common practices, if not predominant, throughout most of recorded history? 

I'm really interested in your answers. Erwin J. Haeberle in THE SEX ATLAS got it right and provides some sobering context to your opinions. Haeberle perfectly summarizes my thoughts on the matter. 

_Still, today there is little doubt that monogamy in one variation or another has always been the most common type of marriage. Both group marriage and polyandry have been found only in very few cultures, and polygyny, although permitted in many societies, has almost always been restricted to the wealthier classes. _http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/forms_and_meanings_of_marriage.html

This proves that the Bible was descriptively and prescriptively right.

*Genesis 2.19-24*

_19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
       "This is now bone of my bones
       and flesh of my flesh;
       she shall be called 'woman,'
       for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh._

Bottom line? Marriage has evolved but it has remained *predominantly **heterosexual *and *monogamic *over centuries.


----------



## Everness

JamesM said:


> I don't read the original post to say that this thread is about legalization of homosexual marraige infringing on freedom of religion.  That was the example, but that was not the question.  The question involved secularization of society and whether this group had a point that society was employing secularism as a new religion.



Yes, that was the original question. I raised it on behalf of conservative Christians but I ended up convinced that they have a point. Secularism is the new religion and appears to be more dogmatic than all previous ones. The New Inquisition has kicked into full gear and it won't stop until all manifestations of religion disappear from the map of Western culture. Do you feel safe in our midst?


----------



## ElaineG

Well, the Bible doesn't prescribe polygamy -- the Old Testament has examples of polygamy, and Ashkenazic Jews were polygamous until approximately 1000 years ago. Sephardic Jewry permitted polygamy in some parts of the world until quite recently -- Israel had to have special provisions for polygamous families emigrating after it's creation as a state. It's a rabbinical proscription for us, not a Biblical one.

Many versions of Islam, of course, permit polygamy, and prior to the establishment of the Communist state in China, no conflict between Buddhism and polygamy was seen.


Polygamy may not have been recently predominant in most parts of Europe (although the Vikings were polygamous)-- but polygamy remains a central feature of many African cultures, and has been widespread in Asian and Middle Eastern cultures as well.


----------



## cuchuflete

Why on earth did you quote part of my post, and then not refer to it?  

I'll help you understand what you seem to have overlooked:

During much of the time since the scripture you quoted came into being, a wife in the Christian tradition you are attempting to defend from non-existent enemies was the chattel property of her husband.  Perhaps you don't see the change in that part of the definition of marriage as significant evolution.  

Well that's ok.  It's not really evolutionary so much as revolutionary.  A woman is a person.  Christian marriage, much to its credit, has come to accept that fact.  

Another aspect of marriage you may recall from your youth
is the quaint notion of the dowry. It used to be a required precondition for marriage.  Even the FRC seems to have abandoned that obsolete convention.  

Yet another detail, previously mentioned: civil marriage with no requirement for any involvement by clergy.  That's relatively new.

So, without filling too many screens, I think it's obvious that the definition of marriage in, say 1620, has evolved quite a bit.  There's no need to argue pointlessly about whether one likes or dislikes the changes.  The point is that the institution has not been embalmed in a block of clear epoxy.  It has changed.  It will probably continue to evolve, with some people advocating more rapid evolution, and others trying to maintain the status quo for as long as they can. 

As marriage in the US generally requires, both by religious convention and by law, the consent of both members of the predominant two-party agreement, such evolution will not be imposed on any individual.  It will be what it is today, a choice.  Allowing people over the age of 80 to marry, for example, does nothing to threaten the institution for 20 year olds.  If the obese are allowed to engage in matrimony, that denies no rights previously held by the underweight.  
I don't doubt that you have read about folks of geriatric age wedding those who might, by chronology, be their grandchildren.  That has no effect on anyone else but presumptive heirs (who can marry or not, as they see fit).

I await your explanation of how a change in the scope of allowable marriages limits the religious freedom of any individual.   

You say that marriage "...it has remained *predominantly **heterosexual *."   Golly!  In a world populated predominantly by heterosexuals, this is hardly astonishing.  
As if the raw numbers were insufficient, in recent centuries marriage was limited by both church and state to heterosexuals.

The bottom line?  Your statement, while accurate, is just a platitude devoid of an insight.  It states the obvious--the only allowable game in town is the most played game.  

If the New Inquisition has indeed begun, you may read all about it at the FRC web site.  Religion and religious institutions appear robust in the US, while they wither from indifference in most of Europe.  Just relax and enjoy your safe locale.






Everness said:


> How much has marriage evolved over the centuries? Have polygamy and child-marriage been common practices, if not predominant, throughout most of recorded history?
> 
> I'm really interested in your answers.
> 
> _Still, today there is little doubt that monogamy in one variation or another has always been the most common type of marriage. Both group marriage and polyandry have been found only in very few cultures, and polygyny, although permitted in many societies, has almost always been restricted to the wealthier classes._
> 
> Bottom line? Marriage has evolved but it has remained *predominantly **heterosexual *and *monogamic *over centuries.


----------



## ps139

Everness said:


> Could conservatives have a point? We argue that we shouldn't impose *religious values* on a whole society. For instance, conservatives believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gay marriage should be outlawed. Some of us counterargue that we shouldn't impose our religious values on the rest of society, especially those who don't share that belief. But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values* on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society? Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious? Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?


Absolutely. Values are values, whether they are held by a person who goes to church or someone does not. People come to conclusions based on what they believe to be right or wrong, for various reasons. If I say "X is wrong," and you say "X is right," why should it matter who belongs to an institutionalized religion, and who does not? Why should one person's opinion be valid in public discourse... and another's thrown out because of what he or she does with their Sunday mornings?

Basically, everyone has some sort of belief system. You can call it whatever you want, but everyone has some sort of worldview, and in a true democracy, all points of view should be explored and discussed.


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> ..... The New Inquisition has kicked into full gear and it won't stop until all manifestations of religion disappear from the map of Western culture. Do you feel safe in our midst?


Pretty much, Everness! That is how it is here, I think, and how some (perhaps many) want it to be... 


ElaineG said:


> Many versions of Islam, of course, permit polygamy....


There are many tight rules governing polygamy in Islam (including the prior agreement of the first wife...) and contrary to what many believe about Islam, it is not very permissive in this respect at all. The _beginnings _of the institution of polygamy make perfect sense in historical respects. (My information came from an Iranian friend who is a Muslim.


----------



## ElaineG

There are many tight rules governing polygamy in every culture that I'm familiar with that permits it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thank you, cuchuflete, for bringing up the changed status of women within matrimony.  I was just thinking about the Seneca Falls Convention, a mere 160 odd years ago (a drop in the bucket on the "thousands of years" scale), and how at that time a married woman was _legally _and _culturally_ the chattel of her husband, unable to own property, bring a claim in her own name, determine the education of her children, or divorce her husband even if he beat her, cheated on her, drank, spent all her dowry etc. etc. etc.   If she did manage to obtain a divorce, custody of any children was automatically awarded to the father.

That status was viewed as _religiously sanctioned _and the proper _natural order of things, _because the Bible endorse the man as the head of household and because, well, it had been that way for hundreds of years.

No one questions now (well, not many) the fundamental changes in the legal significance of marriage for women.  Yet when Elizabeth Cady Stanton and co. proposed their Declaration of Sentiments (protesting, _inter alia, _that a married woman was, "in the eye of law, civilly dead", they were called "un-Christian", "she-devils", demonic, etc.  

Sound familar?

http://www.nps.gov/archive/wori/declaration.htm (if you are curious).


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> *Genesis 2.19-24*
> 
> _19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. _
> _20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. _
> _21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. _
> _22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man._
> _23 The man said,_
> _"This is now bone of my bones_
> _and flesh of my flesh;_
> _she shall be called 'woman,'_
> _for she was taken out of man."_
> _24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh._
> 
> Bottom line? Marriage has evolved but it has remained *predominantly **heterosexual *and *monogamic *over centuries.


So this is the prescription for Adam and Eve.
Where is the proscription of Peter and Steve?
Where is the proscription of Adam and Eve and Maeve?

.,,


----------



## LouisaB

Everness said:


> Secularism is the new religion and appears to be more dogmatic than all previous ones. The New Inquisition has kicked into full gear and it won't stop until all manifestations of religion disappear from the map of Western culture. Do you feel safe in our midst?


 
Victoria 32's reply to this reads:


> Pretty much, Everness! That is how it is here, I think, and how some (perhaps many) want it to be


 
The original question is answered.

In the past, religion held an unhealthy control over people's lives. Those who did not share its beliefs were vilified with impunity, because religion dominated the state. Certain assumptions were made (for example in sixteenth century Spain) that _of_ _course _religion was the only possible driving force for a government's actions. If there were a clash between religious and secular values, religion automatically won by default.

So now what have we got? I have newly come to this thread, and read the whole thing all in one go with the eyes of an outsider. The overriding impression is of a world which says _of course_ the state must be able to take priority over religion. I actually agree with that myself - but I can also see its implications. I have seen only one person dare to admit to holding religious beliefs, and that person has consitently maintained a calm and reasonable argument in the face of astonishingly imflammatory rhetoric. Another voice has dared to question some of the assumptions being made in the thread, but the response has been 'Tough, but that's how it is. People like _us _are in the majority now, so you just have to put up with it'.



> 'Sound familiar?'


 asks ElaineG. Oh, yes. Yes indeed. Early Modern Europe would have recognised it. Islam would recognise it. Secularism has taken over the role of the bully, and except in countries where religion is integrated into the state, religion has become the persecuted. ps139 has already drawn the natural conclusion. Yes, securalism is indeed the new religion.

I totally support gay marriage. I actually went to my own sister's two months ago, and it was a wonderful and very moving experience. I totally believe in the freedom of the individual. But I also believe in freedom of belief, and freedom of speech. I will not call someone names because they disagree with me, nor will I attack any organisation whose beliefs strike at my personal liberty (as Islam rules curtail the freedom of women). 

'Do you feel safe in our midst?' asks Everness. Frankly, no. I am actually nervous even thinking about posting this, which is a terrible thing in a forum dedicated to free and open discussion. I am even more afraid to admit I am a Christian - but I am.

No, that doesn't mean I support any of the extreme and repressive views which have been attributed to 'conservative Christians' here, any more than James M does. It doesn't even mean I don't approve the separation of Church and State. It means I profess and try to practise certain religious beliefs, that's all. I certainly don't insist you share them.

S.G.Tallentyre spoke the words commonly attributed to Voltaire in protest against the oppressive forces of religion in the 18th century. 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

If you read the whole thread again, I think you'll see who is now most in need of this protection.


----------



## ireney

_If_ someone takes steps against a religion that one issue. If one takes steps which are against the beliefs of one or more religions that's another.

Saying  "you can't do this" is quite different from "whoever wants can do that". The first can be understood as bullying those who believe in A. The second is giving a right to people who don't believe in A.  If people who believe in A choose to see this as bullying then others can choose to see them as conservative, dragging their feet and so on and so forth. 

Let me give an example that has nothing to do with religion. 

There are no private Universities in Greece. None. If someone wants to go to the University and fails the exams to enter public Universities he/she has to go abroad. FOr many reasons our goverment decided we should allow to private Universities to operate in Greece. Students and professors of the public Universities are in an uproar., They say that private Universities will diminish their status, that they will make a mockery of Univerity education and so on and so forth. 
They also claim that education in Greece has always been free of chanrge (choosing to ignore the existence of private elementary and high schools). Now no one said that public Universities's status will change in any way. The fact that another alternative will be there for people who don't want to or can't go to the public Universities is not an attack on them.


----------



## LouisaB

ireney said:


> _If_ someone takes steps against a religion that one issue. If one takes steps which are against the beliefs of one or more religions that's another.


 
Of course it is. That's not what I'm saying. I am in no way arguing that giving freedom to one section of society (for example for gay marriage) is in itself an attack on religion. I did try to say that I do _not_ agree with the 'conservative Christians' on this at all. 

What I was talking about was quite simply the attitude being adopted in this discussion. It seems to be taking place in a context where it is acceptable to denigrate (and indeed vilify) people who hold certain religious beliefs. Even as little as a century ago, this discussion would have probably been reversed. Anyone daring to speak up for the rights of gays (even without being one him/herself) would have been subjected to all manner of abuse, much of it in the name of religion. 

These days, it's very different. Now, which of us on this forum would dare to attack any form of homosexuality? But nobody is afraid to attack the religious beliefs of the FRC. Personally, I am an active supporter of gay rights, and I do not agree with the FRC in any way. I am merely pointing out the vilification to which they have been subjected in this discussion is the secular equivalent of what religious bigots would have done not so many years ago.

I'm sorry if that didn't come over clearly.


----------



## TrentinaNE

LouisaB said:
			
		

> It means I profess and try to practise certain religious beliefs, that's all. I certainly don't insist you share them.


Excellent.  It's not Christians like you that I fear.  It's the ones who do try to force their beliefs into my country's legal code that cause problems for me.  The FRC are not being "villified" here for what they believe, but for what they do.  


			
				Everness said:
			
		

> The New Inquisition has kicked into full gear and it won't stop until all manifestations of religion disappear from the map of Western culture. Do you feel safe in our midst?


Honestly, I have to laugh when the Falwells and Robertsons of the world complain that Christians are being _persecuted_ today.  Weren't they taught the same stories I was in my grade school religion classes of early Christians going *willingly* to the lions' den to proclaim their faith?    Believe me, the U.S. will have a black homosexual Christian president before an atheist holds that office.


----------



## cuchuflete

LouisaB said:


> It seems to be taking place in a context where it is acceptable to denigrate (and indeed vilify) people who hold certain religious beliefs.
> 
> But nobody is afraid to attack the religious beliefs of the FRC. ... I am merely pointing out the vilification to which they have been subjected in this discussion is the secular equivalent of what religious bigots would have done not so many years ago.



Attacks on the FRC are not attacks against any one religion, or against religion in general.  Criticism of the FRC is not a spiritual or religious matter at all.  It is about public policy and law.  

Have the religious beliefs of the FRC been attacked?  I'll reread the thread carefully for any signs of that.   

The FRC is not a religion, nor is it a religious organization.  It is, by its own statements, an organization that attempts to influence public policy and legislation.  It commissions research to support its positions, publishes books and pamphlets proposing regulation of computer usage in schools and libraries.  It takes positions on legislation to deal with climate change and a variety of subjects that have no spiritual content.  

In everyday terms, it is a lobbying group with a right-wing posture.  As a player in the public policy arena, it
works to attract publicity to the causes and positions it advocates, and uses the same tools, including exaggeration and distortion and fear, used by many policy groups, including its opponents.  

It recently finished a $3 million (USD) fundraising drive to support its political efforts, and has tax-free status under US law. (details/source)


----------



## LouisaB

TrentinaNE said:


> Honestly, I have to laugh when the Falwells and Robertsons of the world complain that Christians are being _persecuted_ today. Weren't they taught the same stories I was in my grade school religion classes of early Christians going *willingly* to the lions' den to proclaim their faith?


 
You are absolutely at liberty to laugh. Personally, I don't find persecution of _any _group funny, but maybe that's just me.

But, cuchuflete, you are right to make the point about it not being the FRC's religious beliefs under attack. As a Brit, I did not fully understand the nature of the FRC, and you are quite right to correct me. Perhaps what I should have referred to are the attacks on 'conservative Christians'. That sounds to me as if someone is being identified by their beliefs. Is that wrong too?

P.S. I do apologise that I can't get the hang of 'quoting' from more than one person's message at a time. If there's a sticky anywhere telling us how to do this, I'd be really grateful for the advice! Many thanks.


----------



## cuchuflete

LouisaB said:


> But, cuchuflete, you are right to make the point about it not being the FRC's religious beliefs under attack. As a Brit, I did not fully understand the nature of the FRC, and you are quite right to correct me. Perhaps what I should have referred to are the attacks on 'conservative Christians'. That sounds to me as if someone is being identified by their beliefs. Is that wrong too?



About 4 in 5 Americans identify themselves as Christians.  Many—probably most— of these are devout and sincere, and also believe in the separation of church and state.  There are those who take pride in calling themselves conservative, and use the word "Christian" as a banner of righteousness when they embark on attempts to influence policy and legislation.

Their religious beliefs, and rights to practice whatever religion they please, should be strenuously defended.  That's crucial to the way US society is supposed to work.  When a minority of those believers attempt to carry those beliefs, and other ideas with little or no religious basis,  beyond the home and church, and into the legislative arena, they become fair game for opposing viewpoints.  If a group such as the FRC, constantly invoking God and the Judeo-Christian tradition, tries to influence votes in the state and federal legislative bodies in support of bigotry and narrow-mindedness, I will call that what it is.  It is no different from an atheist or agnostic supporting the same right wing agenda.  


I don't choose to identify the FRC members and supporters as conservative Christians—they do.   That group spent about $10 USD million last year lobbying various congressional bodies, claiming at every step of the way that they are acting in defense of religious values, rights, and freedom against the
"homosexual agenda".  They say, "we will discuss the threat that a homosexual agenda poses to our free exercise of religion." (source)

The FRC says of its founder, "James Dobson stood out because of his rare combination of Christian social values and academic and professional credentials."

I don't know where Christian religious values and "Christian social values" part company, if at all, but politics is politics.


----------



## LouisaB

cuchuflete said:


> Their religious beliefs, and rights to practice whatever religion they please, should be strenuously defended. That's crucial to the way US society is supposed to work. When a minority of those believers attempt to carry those beliefs, and other ideas with little or no religious basis, beyond the home and church, and into the legislative arena, they become fair game for opposing viewpoints. If a group such as the FRC, constantly invoking God and the Judeo-Christian tradition, tries to influence votes in the state and federal legislative bodies in support of bigotry and narrow-mindedness, I will call that what it is. It is no different from an atheist or agnostic supporting the same right wing agenda.
> 
> I don't know where Christian religious values and "Christian social values" part company, if at all, but politics is politics.


 
Personally, I agree - although ours is a dangerous position, since a number of creeds contain the importance of converting other people as a significant part of that belief. This is the case with Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, and indeed with Islam. Therefore if we criticise them for imposing their views on others, we are indeed attacking their beliefs themselves.

The 'conservative Christian' label seems a 'nice' point. The FRC may all be conservative Christians, but not all conservative Christians have anything to do with the FRC or indeed any other political body. It was not you who used the term first, cuchuflete, but I think perhaps we need to be a little careful how we use it now.

There also seems to be some confusion in the thread as to how far the hostility to same-sex relationships has any basis in the Christian religion at all., and no-one has yet answered .,,'s question about the 'proscription of Adam and Steve'. If it helps, the usual Biblical references given are: Genesis XIX (which I would discount personally, as it seems to me to be only against homosexual rape); Leviticus XVIII (the infamous 'thou shalt not lie with a woman as with a man - it is an abomination'); Romans I 26-27 (St Paul's direct injunction against homosexuality) and I Corinthians VI 9-10 (the same).

As a 'liberal Christian' I have no difficulty whatsoever reconciling my own support for gay relationships with these texts. To me, the New Testament specifically replaces the Old (Genesis and Leviticus included) so that while I understand why these beliefs are still an essential part of Hebraic Law (which does not acknowledge Christ) I do not feel they are an essential part of a Christian's beliefs. St Paul's letters are (as far as I am concerned) just that - the letters of a great man. They are not (to me) the word of God.

For a 'conservative Christian', the position is very different. To many, every word of the Bible is the word of God and directly inspired by Him. Therefore to such people, homosexuality remains 'an abomination', and this is a genuine part of their religious beliefs. I disagree absolutely with them, but I can accept it as a sincere part of their faith. I won't attack them for it, and I won't even call them narrow-minded bigots, for that would be to denigrate and vilify someone else's religion.

I hope that clarifies things a little.


----------



## cuchuflete

The FRC and like-minded organizations and individuals have, as pointed out in Post #1, and at the FRC web site, adopted an effective technique.  They have declared themselves to be victims.  Claiming to be under seige is a useful way to rally support.  Extending the claim to encompass others who are also not under attack can also be effective.

Many Christian churches have gay clergy.  Therefore, one could argue, Christianity is supporting a "gay agenda", whatever that may be.   Yes, that is a nonsensical statement.
It doesn't have any more fact or logic behind it than the claim that legal gay marriage is a threat to anyone's right and ability to practice Christian religion.  

Some conservative Christian groups, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, and the Episcopal Church in Canada allow male clergymen to divorce, remarry, and remain members of the clergy.  Is that secularization run rampant?  

What about the Anglican Church of England, which allows both male and female homosexual members of the clergy to marry?  Is that "secularization" attacking religious freedom?
[have a look here]

"Family values" has a nice ring to it.  Who could disagree with such a thing?  Does it include only those families who agree with the FRC's definitions, or are other families acknowledged to have values as well?  

Here's a quote from a gay Christian web page:



> The sacred Christian call is to support gay marriage. Christians are to share each other's burdens. The most Christian thing a straight Christian can do is to share the burden of marriage with a gay brother or lesbian sister in Christ.


source

Is that "secularization" at work?


----------



## geve

LouisaB said:


> Now, which of us on this forum would dare to attack any form of homosexuality?


This has been done at great length on this forum. I'm actually surprised that no one used this thread to do that so far - some people seem to jump at any opportunity.


Forgive me if I still have a vocabulary problem here... But isn't secularism the only option when it comes to public decisions (when there's no state religion, that is)? What would happen if one religion was in favour of gay marriage and another religion against it? 
I don't see how secularism can be called a religion. People who hold religious beliefs can take part in secular decisions. People who hold religious beliefs can't take part in other religions' decisions.


----------



## ElaineG

LouisaB said:


> Even as little as a century [?????], this discussion would have probably been reversed. Anyone daring to speak up for the rights of gays (even without being one him/herself) would have been subjected to all manner of abuse, much of it in the name of religion.


 
I really think it's important to read and to understand as much history as possible to better develop an understanding of these areas.

40 years ago, gays and lesbians in the United States, including right here in NYC, lived in fear of being arrested simply for gathering at bars catering to them. The Stonewall Riots in 1969 were the birth of the gay rights movement. The struggle for gay equality has been an rocky one over the last 40 years -- although _Lawrence_ v. _Texas_ (2003) finally held that laws _criminalizing_ gay sex were unconstitutional, _Bowers _v. _Hardwick, _which was decided in 1986, _20 years ago, not a century ago_, held that it was just _fine_ to send people to jail for having consensual adult gay sex.

Also, let's consider the context: this board may be pro-gay-marriage but we are not representative _of anything_. Look at the electoral results from the last several elections in the United States, if you wonder which positions or viewpoints in the United States are _actually_ embattled. The truth is the country is split fairly well down the middle, and no single viewpoint can lay claim to persecution.

This is not to say that it is equally dangerous to be a conservative Christian in the United States and to be a gay or lesbian person. Every year, a few horrible bias murders of gay people, like the tragic crucifixion of Matthew Shepard, make the national news. We've had two such murders in _liberal_ Brooklyn in the past 6 months. When was the last time you read a story about a conservative Christian being beaten to death bya  band of roving drag queens or leather dykes? (And, believe me, Fox News (by far the most popular news channel in the United States, which regularly runs features on the War on Christmas, and is openly conservative in its orientation, Matt Drudge and other news outlets would make the most of these incidents if they were occurring).

I never want to vilify anyone's religion, but maybe it's because my extended family has lived through (and not) religious persecution of the real and murderous kind in recent generations that I find it hard to 
take seriously the claim that conversative Christians in this country are now being vilified and persecuted. That strikes me as melodramatic, if we think about what vilification and persecution really means.

Some statistics from the 2004 federal hate crimes report may shed light on:



> who is now most in need of this protection.


 


> Of the 1,480 reported offenses within single-bias incidents that were motivated by the offender’s religious bias, 67.8 percent were anti-Jewish, 13.0 percent were anti-Islamic,_ 3.9 percent were anti-Catholic, 2.9 percent were anti-Protestant_, and 0.5 percent were anti-Atheism or Agnosticism.


 


> In 2004, bias against a particular sexual orientation accounted for 1,406 offenses within single-bias hate crime incidents. Law enforcement agencies reported that 60.8 percent of these offenses resulted from an anti-male homosexual bias, 21.1 percent from an anti-homosexual bias, 14.3 percent from an anti-female homosexual bias, 2.5 percent from an anti-heterosexual bias, and 1.3 percent from an anti-bisexual bias.


 
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm


----------



## maxiogee

Many of the people who left Britain in the early days of the white settlement of America did so because they felt unable to practise their religion as they saw fit.
Could any Christian who feels persecuted in the USA of today explain the following to a foreigner who is living in a country where the Catholic Church is still coming to terms with having lost the confidence of the nation…

what religious freedoms they feel they have lost?
what religious freedoms they feel they are in danger of losing?
what aspects of their religious life do they feel unable to participate in?
what rights do they claim to be due to them by the State they live in, or by the country as a whole?
what rights they believe a State or the whole country should accord to others who do not believe as they do?


----------



## cuchuflete

geve said:


> What would happen if one religion was in favour of gay marriage and another religion against it?



That is precisely what is going on today.  There are Christian churches in the US that support gay rights, including having gay clergy and the proposed legal rights to marriage.  There are opposing Christian churches in the US that declare this to be an abomination.

The difference is that the latter group has members who, through political action groups such as the FRC, are portraying themselves as speaking on behalf of all Christians.  They are defining Christianity in a way that excludes tens of millions of other Christians.

Do they have a right, as private and as organized citizens, to lobby for legislation in accord with their views?  Yes.

Do they have moral standing to declare that they speak for the one and only acceptable interpretation of what it means to be a Christian?  They seem to think so, and many others think not.   

Why hasn't Everness or anyone else here yet even attempted to show, with whatever fact and logic they may possess, how
gay marriage does  or could reduce or even threaten any religious belief or activity?  

Bluntly, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage recently.  Some homosexual people are now married and living in that state.
Has any member of any religion been denied the right to believe what they please, and practice their religion as a result of these gay marriages?


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Bluntly, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage recently.  Some homosexual people are now married and living in that state.



What is the relation between the various states in terms of recognising marriages performed in one state where the parties move to live in another? 

Should a gay or lesbian Massachusetts-married couple to move to ?? and be prosecuted under immorality or other laws, could they claim that as no-one prosecutes those straight couples who were married in a different state, then they shouldn't be prosecuted either? 
Doesn't "The Mann Act" apply in those cases where a couple aren't married and they cross state lines?


----------



## ampurdan

cuchuflete said:


> The difference is that the latter group has members who, through political action groups such as the FRC, are portraying themselves as speaking on behalf of all Christians. They are defining Christianity in a way that excludes tens of millions of other Christians.


 
Well, to be fair, one must say that "pro-gay" Christians are portraying themselves as speaking on behalf of all Christians too; even though it's true that their way is more inclusive. Monotheists, unless they are somewhat relativists, believe that their religious way is the truest one.

I never heard about the FRC but their ways look very familiar to me. The same thing occurs with the Roman Catholic Church. Conservative groups have been using the Vatican and the Holy See to impose their believes to their whole Church. And it is very effective indeed. Few priests do dare to publicly disagree, even in our days. Obedience and faith are quite inextricable.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the same thing happened among muslims and jews. 

I think that it is good to keep religious believes at home. That does not mean that religion must be prosecuted or have any public relevance, it only means that it should not be used as a political weapon to counterat rational claims in fields that are not primarily religious, because religious arguments cannot be shared by everyone, while rational can potentially be. That's what your secularization and the French laïcité are about, I think.


----------



## ElaineG

> What is the relation between the various states in terms of recognising marriages performed in one state where the parties move to live in another?


 
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed back in 1996 with a vote of 85-14 in the Senate, and signed into law by one President Clinton, provides: 

1) that no state is required to recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if another state has married them, and

2) the federal goverment _may not_ recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex or a polygamous marriage for _any purpose_ (benefits, taxes etc. etc.).

This is the legislative framework in which our supposedly overly secular society operates.

The constitutionality of this law is theoretically subject to challenge, as it potentially calls into question the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (under which states are normally required to recognize the legal acts of other states, including all heterosexual marriages) and the Equal Protection Clause.  However, I would be surprised if a constitutional challenge to the law made much headway, particularly given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the possibility of a constitutional challenge, or of more states recognizing same sex marriage, has led many conservative groups to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would make the principle that marriage is between a man and a woman part of the federal Constitution.



> Doesn't "The Mann Act" apply in those cases where a couple aren't married and they cross state lines?


 
The current incarnation of the Mann Act prohibits crossing state lines for the purpose of committing "any sexual activity for which any person may be charged with a criminal offense."  Since 2003, under the Supreme Court's decision in _Lawrence_ v. _Texas_, laws making homosexual sex criminal are no longer constitutional, so at least our hypothetical Mr. and Mr. Smith from Massachusetts do not have to worry about a Mann Act prosecution.


----------



## Victoria32

geve said:


> Forgive me if I still have a vocabulary problem here... But isn't secularism the only option when it comes to public decisions (when there's no state religion, that is)? What would happen if one religion was in favour of gay marriage and another religion against it?
> I don't see how secularism can be called a religion. People who hold religious beliefs can take part in secular decisions. People who hold religious beliefs can't take part in other religions' decisions.


When secularism means (as it sometimes does) that religious discussion is considered illegitimate,_ then it can be considered to be acting as it is a religion... although it actually isn't one. _
There is considerable inter-faith dialogue here, though as you say, one religion has no part in the decision-making processes of another.


----------



## geve

Victoria32 said:


> When secularism means (as it sometimes does) that religious discussion is considered illegitimate,_ then it can be considered to be acting as it is a religion... although it actually isn't one. _


Why?  Does the definition of religion include that it considers discussions that are outside their set of beliefs as illegitimate?
I would call that intolerance, not religion.


----------



## Victoria32

geve said:


> Why?  Does the definition of religion include that it considers discussions that are outside their set of beliefs as illegitimate?
> I would call that intolerance, not religion.


No, that is not what I meant .... I meant that _sometimes _secularism in the media and government considers discussions that include religion as illegitimate. Some religions think that discussions outside their terms of reference are also illegitimate. In that respect, secularism can resemble religion, and Everness' question was about about whether secularism is becoming "the new religion". I believe that in some respects it might well be.


----------



## TrentinaNE

LouisaB said:


> You are absolutely at liberty to laugh. Personally, I don't find persecution of _any _group funny, but maybe that's just me.


Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't laughing at anyone being persecuted. What I find laughable is the _claim_ that Christians in America today are being persecuted. They aren't. To say they are is a gross insult to people who actually are or have been persecuted -- such as the Christians in early Rome.

Elisabetta


----------



## geve

Victoria32 said:


> No, that is not what I meant .... I meant that _sometimes _secularism in the media and government considers discussions that include religion as illegitimate. Some religions think that discussions outside their terms of reference are also illegitimate. In that respect, secularism can resemble religion, and Everness' question was about about whether secularism is becoming "the new religion". I believe that in some respects it might well be.


I'm afraid I still don't understand: 
_- X is sometimes intolerant._
_- A part of Y is intolerant._
_- Which means, X is becoming Y._ 
 that's strange rhetoric to me.


----------



## cuchuflete

Is secularism becoming a religion?  No.

My frame of reference is the country where I live.

We have a tradition, and a legal basis, for separation of church and state.  That is a secular philosphy.

In the past couple of decades, some members of some religious groups have, presumably on religious grounds, but maybe more so on ideological ones, formed political influence associations that try to directly insert some interpretations of some religious thinking into laws and regulations that apply to all the citizenry.

The result has been a backlash, in which some other citizens have said, "Wait a minute. Aren't we supposed to keep state and church apart, for the benefit of both?"

There is nothing anti-religious in that reaction.  It's just a more pronounced utterance of what is in the Constitution, in reply to those who work to undermine a basic founding principal of the country's political system.  

Being anti-theocracy is far from being anti-religious.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Why hasn't Everness or anyone else here yet even attempted to show, with whatever fact and logic they may possess, how gay marriage does  or could reduce or even threaten any religious belief or activity?



I didn’t attempt to show how gay marriage reduces or could reduce or even threaten any religious belief or activity because I don’t believe it does. Brett Clifton implied that conservative Christians think that way. What I believe is that we are confusing healthy secularization with dogmatic secularism. As a result, the cultural environment in Western societies is becoming more intolerant toward religious thinking. Medieval roles have reversed. True religion is dogmatic but I find the anti-religious mob to be even more dogmatic and intolerant. Of course this new secularist ethos is off the books. After all, we preach tolerance and openess....

Back to our sub-topic that illustrates our main topic. Here’s my perspective. Christian conservatives are (1) voicing their opinion about a social institution that belongs to all of us and not just to a particular group and (2) trying to mobilize their constituency to make sure that the institution of marriage isn’t redefined to allow same-sex marriages. What’s wrong with that? Do you want them to shut up because you don’t like what they stand for? Are you worried that they could influence public opinion because most Americans are too impressionable or plain retards? You accuse conservative "Christians" of trying to impose their viewpoints and lifestyles on other people. That’s refined B.S. I don’t see them doing that. They are arguing their case, a legitimate right in any democratic society. If people buy into their ideas, embrace them and more states continue to adopt anti-gay marriage laws, that would simply mean that they did a better job at communicating their opinions. The other possibility, of course, could be that Americans in general are a bunch of retrograde homophobes. After all *nineteen *US states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman and *forty-three* states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. Even California, known for its large gay communities and liberal political climate, has a state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman! A judge declared it unconstitutional. Appeals to this ruling were heard by the First District Court of Appeal last July. The Court issued its ruling a couple of weeks ago overturning the judge’s decision. (Quick digression. I just hope that California, that has some of the most relaxed laws regarding marijuana possession, doesn't criminalize it again. Currently there's  no prison time given or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amounts for personal consumption. It is treated, more or less, like a minor traffic ticket. When is Massachusetts following suit?  )  

Bottom line? Marriage is a social institution and it’s perfectly ok to discuss if it should be reformed or not. You can’t argue that straight people have no right to discuss same-sex marriage because they it doesn’t affect them. Marriage is a social institution that regulates society and its everybody’s business. We need everyone’s opinions regardless of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, etc. Some people in the US think that marriage should be more inclusive and other people thing it should remain the way it is. We are having a debate on the issue, as it should happen in any democratic society. Both camps need to argue their cases, back up their assertions and attempt to influence people’s opinions. It’s not an easy conversation because it’s emotionally loaded. The other topic that is kind of prickly is abortion. Interestingly enough, both topics are directly or indirectly related to sex. Although the pros and cons of heterosexual marriages vs. same-sex marriages should be discussed on their own merits, it’s naïve bordering on foolish to believe that religious and ideological values are not going to inform this debate. (I hope you aren’t saying that defenders of same-sex marriages are ideology-free or that non-religious ideologies are superior than theologies.) There’s nothing wrong with that. If all American citizens agreed that homosexuality was as normal as heterosexuality, we might not be having this collective conversation. But we don’t. Some people accept homosexuality as another form of sexuality and other people don’t. You can call the latter bigots, close-minded pricks, etc. etc. if it makes you feel better but that doesn’t solve the problem or change anyone’s minds. Some people believe that same sex marriage is a sin or simply a bad idea. (There's a  myth that only religious fundamentalists oppose gay marriage.) They have all the right to think that way and to argue their case. If they succeed at this, matrimony will continue to be between a man and a woman. If they don’t, sooner or later same-sex marriages will be more inclusive... and we'll all be smoking pot!


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> Christian conservatives are (1) voicing their opinion about a social institution that belongs to all of us and not just to a particular group and (2) trying to mobilize their constituency to make sure that the institution of marriage isn’t redefined to allow same-sex marriages. What’s wrong with that? Do you want them to shut up because you don’t like what they stand for?



Thanks for answering the question.

I certainly don't object to conservatives, Christian, atheist, or religiously indifferent, from arguing a point of view, or from trying to get laws passed to support a viewpoint.

There is an interesting self-contradiction in the quote above:

"...about a social institution that belongs to all of us and not just to a particular group"   If it belongs "to all of us", and yet is reserved for some of us, then it cannot belong to all of us.  That presupposes that you have used "us" to include all citizens, and not just those of one sexual bent.  

Feel free to call me a secularist if you wish.  Now that the label business is out of the way, let's get to my objection to the
FRC way of arguing their viewpoint: 

1) They are alarmist.  Fear sells.  They are trying to frighten people with the declaration that if Joe and Jack get married,
Loretta and Hank's marriage will be destroyed, their children will be forced to watch porno movies in school, and the family will go down the tubes.  According to divorce statistics, the last has already happened, without benefit of homosexual unions.

2) They tell big lies, early and often.  As you stated at the top of your last post, there is no constraint or threat or attack on anyone's practice of religion resulting from gay marriage.  Yet that is the slogan the FRC and like organizations use.  They don't prove it because they cannot, but that doesn't impede them from using it to mobilize mobs of people.

So, this secularist condemns them for being liars and alarmists, while respecting their effective crowd mobilization techniques, all of which are legal, protected, and not necessarily ethical.

There is a theme running through your last, and earlier, posts:
Self-styled liberals are sometimes narrow-minded.  They believe in diversity...for those who agree with them.  You won't get an argument from me on that point.  I recently withdrew from a group that put "diversity" into its bylaws as an objective, and shuddered with horror when I suggested that all of us nice progressive environmentalists might benefit from the presence of some conservative members.  It didn't even help to remind them that the US environmental movement got its start from
a conservative president also known for trust-busting.  

I still await proof that secularization, in the anti-religious sense, is really taking place.  The FRC site cites a poll showing that 70%+ of college students in the US say that religion is very important in their lives.  Of the non-religious people I know, not a single one is hostile to religion.  No doubt there are people who don't care for religion, but I haven't seen evidence that they are (1)numerous or (2)an effective or cohesive social or political force.  

I sometimes listen to right-wing radio while cutting wood, just to stay in touch with opposing viewpoints.  I constantly hear that
"the mainstream media" is peddling "extreme leftist propaganda".   I don't know exactly what qualifies as mainstream media any more, with Fox news being a highly successful, right-wing part of the US media scene, and the formerly powerful TV networks declining in audience reach.  When I listen to, or read what I believe is considered mainstream media, I don't detect any extremist bias.  Apparently the FRC doesn't either, as they quote numerous NY Times articles to support their own positions. 

Thus I put the 'secularization=new religion' stuff down to fearmongering political technique, somewhat effective yet groundless in fact.  

I'd be willing to bet a cord of split, dried maple that we could take the anti-suffragette arguments of the last century and find that the family and religion were about to go to hell in a handbasket if women got the vote.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Back to our sub-topic that illustrates our main topic. Here’s my perspective. Christian conservatives are (1) voicing their opinion about a social institution that belongs to all of us and not just to a particular group and (2) trying to mobilize their constituency to make sure that the institution of marriage isn’t redefined to allow same-sex marriages.


Can't the opponents of same-sex marriages maintain a dignified aloofness from that which they don't wish to engage with? As the Amish remain remote from that with which they disagree, but they don't try to stop others from availing of them.
If the sacramental element of a church Marriage is special enough for these Christians, surely nothing the state can do can controvert that? I could understand if they felt that their Churches were about to permit same-sex marriage to be undertaken in a church and blessed by a minister. But that would be a different matter.






cuchuflete said:


> I'd be willing to bet a cord of split, dried maple that we could take the anti-suffragette arguments of the last century and find that the family and religion were about to go to hell in a handbasket if women got the vote.


Imagine grandfather Maxiogee up on a soapbox, ranting about the dangers inherent in giving the vote to women. He predicts that in a hundred years the population will have degenerated dreadfully - that the churches will be empty and that marriage-for-life will be a thing of the past, he's about to get into his stride when grandfather Cuchuflete bets that cord of wood to grandfather Maxiogee's fatted calf, that he's wrong. That giving women the vote will make for a fairer and more balanced society. Imagine that they agree - with the wager to be adjudged in a hundred years and paid by and to their grandchildren, who do you think would be paying?


----------



## Everness

Two general comments:

First, defenders of same-sex marriages have a daunting task in front of them because they are tinkering with an institution that has been around for thousands of years, especially in the West. Even some very "primitive" peoples have always practiced monogamy. _In view of this fact, one might perhaps call monogamy the "natural" form of marriage, although one should not conclude that everyone will always be happy with it, or that it is practical in every situation.
_http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/forms_and_meanings_of_marriage.html

Second, I already said that redefining marriage amounts to opening a can of worms. Why? Legally and logically speaking, anyone could marry anyone. I think that only women would be happy about this development. For instance, mothers could finally marry their sons. After all, who could love your baby more than you? The slut he’s currently in love with and whom he is planning to marry or you, who carried him in your womb for 9 months and diligently raised him for a couple of decades? That’s what I call a no brainer.


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> Imagine grandfather Maxiogee up on a soapbox, ranting about the dangers inherent in giving the vote to women. He predicts that in a hundred years the population will have degenerated dreadfully - that the churches will be empty and that marriage-for-life will be a thing of the past, he's about to get into his stride when grandfather Cuchuflete bets that cord of wood to grandfather Maxiogee's fatted calf, that he's wrong. That giving women the vote will make for a fairer and more balanced society. Imagine that they agree - with the wager to be adjudged in a hundred years and paid by and to their grandchildren, who do you think would be paying?


Are you saying that the population has degenerated because women got the right to vote?   
No, of course you aren't. We all know that society is falling appart anyway ("_la société, elle a que des problèmes_", said a group of French philosophers comics in a rap song), and that things were better the way they use to be.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> Two general comments:
> 
> First, defenders of same-sex marriages have a daunting task in front of them because they are tinkering with an institution that has been around for thousands of years, especially in the West. Even some very "primitive" peoples have always practiced monogamy. _In view of this fact, one might perhaps call monogamy the "natural" form of marriage, although one should not conclude that everyone will always be happy with it, or that it is practical in every situation.
> _http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/forms_and_meanings_of_marriage.html


What does monogamy have to do with same sex marriage?... Or secularism and religion, for that matter? 



Everness said:


> Second, I already said that redefining marriage amounts to opening a can of worms. Why? Legally and logically speaking, anyone could marry anyone.


Only if you redefine it to allow everyone in.


----------



## geve

Everness said:


> Second, I already said that redefining marriage amounts to opening a can of worms. Why? Legally and logically speaking, anyone could marry anyone. I think that only women would be happy about this development. For instance, mothers could finally marry their sons. After all, who could love your baby more than you? The slut he’s currently in love with and whom he is planning to marry or you, who carried him in your womb for 9 months and diligently raised him for a couple of decades? That’s what I call a no brainer.


Why do you keep getting back to nonsensical scenarios to argue your point? Marriage is a type of contract between two persons willing to share their lives. Why would a mother marry her son when there's an existing legal frame for parents-children relationships?


----------



## maxiogee

What on earth has monogamy got to do with same-sex marriage? 
Whilst female couples might be the only gay unions to which monogamy might apply etymologically, I think the practice of monandry can nowadays be assumed to be covered by the word "monogamy" - and therefore I see no reason why a male homosexual couple cannot be 'monogamous' as the word is generally understood.

As to the "primitive" peoples comment, there are many practices which such people engage in, to greater or lesser extents, from which we have generally as a species moved away. Let's not go there.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> Whilst female couples might be the only gay unions to which monogamy might apply etymologically, I think the practice of monandry can nowadays be assumed to be covered by the word "monogamy" - and therefore I see no reason why a male homosexual couple cannot be 'monogamous' as the word is generally understood.


Not even that, since the suffix _-gamous_ means "couple" or "marriage", not "woman".


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> Are you saying that the population has degenerated because women got the right to vote?
> No, of course you aren't.



Don't put words into my mouth! 

Actually, I was trying to point out that predicting that if A happens then B will follow, doesn't mean that if B happens it can only have been caused by A.

I'm clearing a space for when that wood arrives 

========

I've just been looking at the title of this thread and have realised that before we got to discussing whether secularism is "THE" new religion, we should first have asked someone to establish that it is "A" religion.


----------



## JamesM

geve said:


> Why do you keep getting back to nonsensical scenarios to argue your point? Marriage is a type of contract between two persons willing to share their lives. Why would a mother marry her son when there's an existing legal frame for parents-children relationships?


 
I'm not in the least suggesting that legalizing gay marriage will lead to mothers marrying their sons.  However... 

There is an underlying issue which I have attempted to bring up before on this thread and have not been able to engage anyone in.  One of the arguments for gay marriage on this thread is to be more inclusive, to extend marriage to more of "us".  While this doesn't immediately bring into question other types of marriage that are outlawed, it does bring up the question of where and why the line is drawn to exclude some people.

If an adult mother and an adult son wish to marry each other, to use the argument proposed for gay marriage, why should they not be able to?  What give society the right to say what goes on their bedroom?

Please keep in mind that I support gay marriage, so this is not "the thin edge of the wedge" argument.  What I'm saying is, when you re-examine and re-define one forbidden type of marriage, it does bring up the philosophical question about other types of banned marriages - brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter, even 1st cousin/1st cousin in most states in the U.S.

In other words, if one of the chief arguments _for_ gay marriage is expanding the civil contract to include more people who wish to enter into it and that religious beliefs and outdated established social taboos should no longer apply, what justification do you use to prohibit these other types of marriage?  They are also between consenting adults (presuming both _are_ adults.)  They are willing to commit to the relationship legally and accept all the legal consequences of that decision.

What then do you use as a basis to determine that they should not get married?  Or do you?


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:


> Not even that, since the suffix _-gamous_ means "couple" or "marriage", not "woman".



My mistake, thanks for pointing that out. I've always believed it to be the reciprocal of ~andry. That's my "something new" for today, then!
So what is the reciprocal of monandry?


----------



## Outsider

Monogyny. 

The "poly-" words are better known, polygyny (many wives), polyandry (many husbands), and polygamy (many spouses).


----------



## geve

JamesM said:


> If an adult mother and an adult son wish to marry each other, to use the argument proposed for gay marriage, why should they not be able to? What give society the right to say what goes on their bedroom?


 I thought I has just answered this very question... Because there already is a legal frame for them.
Marriage is not about "what goes on in their bedroom" (married people are welcome to have separate bedrooms, unmarried couples are welcome to do whatever it is that they wish to do in their bedrooms), marriage is a type of contract.

Unless your question isn't really about parent-children or brother-sister marriage; but about parent-children or brother-sister sexual relations? (which would bring us to another debate: since society has come to accept gay relationships, why shouldn't it accept other kinds of relationships that used to be considered taboo... not for this thread I hope, the burden is already large enough!!)


----------



## cuchuflete

Maxiogee said:
			
		

> Imagine grandfather Maxiogee up on a soapbox,  Yep! I can imagine that. *ranting* about the dangers inherent in giving the vote to women. He predicts that in a hundred years the population will have degenerated dreadfully   - that the churches will be empty  *not in the US* and that marriage-for-life will be a thing of the past  "Only" about half of new marriages fail...., he's about to get into his stride when grandfather Cuchuflete bets that cord of wood to grandfather Maxiogee's fatted calf, that he's wrong.



So, you're a betting man?  I bet Everness will find a way to use the word _slut_ before this thread comes to rest.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> So, you're a betting man? I bet Everness will find a way to use the word _slut_ before this thread comes to rest.


Cheater!  He already did!

It seems that grandfather Maxiogee should have defined the geographical perimeter of his bet... Oh well. Did you really need that wood anyway?


----------



## JamesM

geve said:


> I thought I has just answered this very question... Because there already is a legal frame for them.
> Marriage is not about "what goes on in their bedroom" (married people are welcome to have separate bedrooms, unmarried couples are welcome to do whatever it is that they wish to do in their bedrooms), marriage is a type of contract.
> 
> Unless your question isn't really about parent-children or brother-sister marriage; but about parent-children or brother-sister sexual relations? (which would bring us to another debate: since society has come to accept gay relationships, why shouldn't it accept other kinds of relationships that used to be considered taboo... not for this thread I hope, the burden is already large enough!!)


 
But the two topics are linked, I think. If this argument is valid - that social taboos, conventions and religious beliefs should not be the determinant for who can and cannot be married, then it must apply to more than one group that is currently unable to marry.

I don't think your argument about there already being a legal framework for mother and son answers the question at all. First, the legal relationship is very different between mother and son and husband and wife. A son does not have shared rights over the mother's property, for example.

Furthermore, I don't believe that people who want to get married - gay, straight, mother-and-son - see it primarily or exclusively as a legal framework. Otherwise,they could simply set up a legal partnership that shared financial obligations and benefits. It is also a recognition of two people who wished to treated as a couple, both legally and socially. 

My question is - what basis do you use to allow gay marriage and deny mother-son marriage, if you are going to exclude religious beliefs and social taboos of the past as valid reasons for denying two people the right to marry?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello James,
If we look past the incest taboo as a religious matter, and just deal with biology of it, it frequently leads to deformed offspring.  That places an economic burden on society.
Also, incest is illegal in most places, so making it permissible within marriage would be a law allowing otherwise unlawful activity.  

Finally, you have pointed out that opening an institution—legally at least—to redefinition may lead to attempts at further redefinition.  You are correct, it may.  That doesn't mean that society will be ready to accept the requested changes.  Even if homosexual marriage is not allowed, people could ask for marriage laws to be changed to include other pairs not currently allowed to marry.  
So, IF homosexual marriage becomes widespread AND other attempts follow to further broaden the definition of marriage, we may still not be able to demonstrate a causal relationship between the first broadening and attempts at a second or third.


----------



## geve

JamesM said:


> My question is - what basis do you use to allow gay marriage and deny mother-son marriage, if you are going to exclude religious beliefs and social taboos of the past as valid reasons for denying two people the right to marry?


Common sense? No, I know this does not make a valid argument.  


JamesM said:


> It is also a recognition of two people who wished to treated as a couple, both legally and socially.


Mother-and-son relationship is already acknowledged by society. I don't think this is about taboos, this is about fundamental structure of society. I think that there are or were other societies where mother-and-child relationships are viewed differently, where children are raised indifferently by any woman of the community. But where you and I live, filiation is a constitutive part of social organization (not that it can't -theoretically- change; but that's another topic).

I am still not convinced that this fits in the topic at hand - "Secularism, the new religion?"


----------



## JamesM

geve said:


> Common sense? No, I know this does not make a valid argument.
> 
> Mother-and-son relationship is already acknowledged by society. I don't think this is about taboos, this is about fundamental structure of society. I think that there are or were other societies where mother-and-child relationships are viewed differently, where children are raised indifferently by any woman of the community. But where you and I live, filiation is a constitutive part of social organization (not that it can't -theoretically- change; but that's another topic).
> 
> I am still not convinced that this fits in the topic at hand - "Secularism, the new religion?"


 
Well, technically, neither does gay marriage, but it has become the de facto example being used to discuss the topic title.  Check back a few pages and you'll see that the person who posted this topic is fine with discussing this issue of expanding the group of people who may marry as being a topic related to the title. I'm just continuing in that vein.

Changing "the fundamental structure of society" is one of the arguments used against gay marriage, geve.  To be considering gay marriage is a shift in the fundamental structure of society for many, many people.   The relationship between mother and son that is recognized by society is very, very different than the relationship between husband and wife.  Surely you can agree that this is true.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> Hello James,
> If we look past the incest taboo as a religious matter, and just deal with biology of it, it frequently leads to deformed offspring. That places an economic burden on society.
> .


 
But. conversely, it can be argued that there are thousands of people walking around today who are the product of an incestuous relationship and who have no biological deformities. The deformities are more related to a multi-generational inbreeding than a single relationship. 

As for placing an economic burden on society, I doubt that argument would hold up well in many cases. We allow destitute people to marry each other and have children who, if their parents' financial situation doesn't improve, become a financial burden to society.



> Also, incest is illegal in most places, so making it permissible within marriage would be a law allowing otherwise unlawful activity.


 
I'm surprised you would offer this as an argument. In many states many homosexual acts are still illegal. This argument could be used against gay marriage as well. 



> Finally, you have pointed out that opening an institution—legally at least—to redefinition may lead to attempts at further redefinition. You are correct, it may. That doesn't mean that society will be ready to accept the requested changes. Even if homosexual marriage is not allowed, people could ask for marriage laws to be changed to include other pairs not currently allowed to marry.
> So, IF homosexual marriage becomes widespread AND other attempts follow to further broaden the definition of marriage, we may still not be able to demonstrate a causal relationship between the first broadening and attempts at a second or third.


 
I'm *not* trying to indicate a causal relationship here specifically between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing other currently illegal marriages. I hope I've made that clear.

What I'm saying is that there is an underlying question of what you should use to determine which marriages should be legalized that's opened up by setting aside religious beliefs and social taboos as valid bases for denying certain marriages. This is profoundly disturbing to a vast number of people. You may be seeing it simply as an issue about gay marriage, but the arguments being used are actually challenging things at a much deeper level. I'm just trying to bring up some of the issues raised when you set aside the old standard but don't propose a new standard. It leaves people in a very undefined state. No wonder there's a lot of emotion attached to this issue.

And, geve... this is where I think it ties into "Secularism: the new religion?"  If religious principles are not going to be the foundation of our laws, then what standard is to be used as a frame of reference for making laws that define the social contract?


----------



## geve

JamesM said:


> The relationship between mother and son that is recognized by society is very, very different than the relationship between husband and wife. Surely you can agree that this is true.


Yes, I do agree. Which is why common sense leads me to think that gay marriage and mother-and-son marriage (or mother-and-daughter marriage, as a matter of fact) are two very different topics.  
If there are such thing as activists of a different form of mother-and-child relationships than the one that is recognized nowadays, these people would have a first step to take, that is, making the said relationship accepted by society. If they succeed then they might move to the question of marriage.


----------



## cuchuflete

I believe the Supreme Court has nullified the various states'
prohibitions against homosexual acts.  See ElaineG's earlier comments on _Loving _and other cases.

Sure, you are correct in repeating that any change to a basic institution is unsettling to lots of people.  I think one obvious difference between gay couples who may wish to marry, and the other groups mentioned for purposes of argument, is that there are lots (relatively) of gay couples who are (1)in committed, stable relationships, and (2)have expressed an interest in being legally married.  The incest pairs and would-be poligamists are 'under the radar' at this time.

I'll quibble with you just a little on one point.  I don't think that the number of people profoundly disturbed by the idea of gay marriage is "vast".  It is apparently substantial, and those people feel troubled enough to be active and vocal in opposition.


----------



## ElaineG

> In many states many homosexual acts are still illegal. This argument could be used against gay marriage as well.
> ..


 
  Not true.

I feel like I write and write about the concrete realities of the law, and no one reads those posts because they are not sensational enough, or are too fact based or something.

For the third time this thread, under the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in _Lawrence_ v. _Texas, all __laws_ criminalizing non-commercial sodomy between consenting adults are not enforceable.  Such statutes may remain on the books, as many laws that are effectively unconstitutional do, until someone bothers cleaning up the code, but they are legal nullities.

As for incest between heterosexual pairs, the "rational basis" test would in all likelihood find the prohibition on incestual marriage to be justified by the state's legitimate interest in preventing deformed offspring. (You might get a trial on the science).  Because there is no "suspect" class involved in a law discriminating between incestuous and non-incestuous pairs, there is no need for strict scrutiny, and the fact that the state does not prevent all deformed children from being born has no legal bearing whatsoever.

It is difficult for me to find a rational basis or a legitimate state interest in prohibiting incestuous gay marriages.  So I will leave that for a wiser mind than mine.


----------



## JamesM

geve said:


> Yes, I do agree. Which is why common sense leads me to think that gay marriage and mother-and-son marriage (or mother-and-daughter marriage, as a matter of fact) are two very different topics.
> If there are such thing as activists of a different form of mother-and-child relationships than the one that is recognized nowadays, these people would have a first step to take, that is, making the said relationship accepted by society. If they succeed then they might move to the question of marriage.


 
But surely this is not a first step that is required in order to address gay marriage.  It is clear from multiple sources that the majority of the U.S. population does not consider gay marriage acceptable.

So this can't be the order of progression required to make something legal.  Otherwise, the gay marriage push is premature. 

Of all things, we can't base laws only on what the majority finds acceptable.  That would be a huge shift in our current system.  Many of our laws, having nothing to do with sexuality, are not popular with the majority.

So, what is the basis to determine what is legal as a relationship?


----------



## Outsider

I was looking at opinion polls made in the US regarding same-sex marriage, and came across this interesting factoid:



> In *1967*, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized _[sic]_ interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.
> In *1991*, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.


Must politicians always wait for public opinion, before they do what's right?


----------



## ElaineG

Thank you, Outsider, that was precisely the analogy I was trying to draw back in Post #23.  No one on "the other side" of the argument has taken up the intterracial marriage issue yet, though.


----------



## geve

JamesM said:


> But surely this is not a first step that is required in order to address gay marriage. It is clear from multiple sources that the majority of the U.S. population does not consider gay marriage acceptable.
> 
> So this can't be the order of progression required to make something legal. Otherwise, the gay marriage push is premature.


I don't follow you. My point was: the question of gay marriage is being discussed in countries where gay relationships are allowed. Incestuous relationships are not allowed in our societies, as far as I know.


----------



## JamesM

geve said:


> I don't follow you. My point was: the question of gay marriage is being discussed in countries where gay relationships are allowed. Incestuous relationships are not allowed in our societies, as far as I know.


 
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.  What I understood you to say was that gay marriage was being discussed in countries wher gay relationships are socially accepted.  Your words were "...that is, making the said relationship accepted by society."  Being allowed and being accepted are two quite different things.

ElaineG, sorry to make you repeat yourself. I've been a little out of the loop while I worked at a site with a filter that would not allow this conversation to be displayed on my screen.    I must have missed your reference.  I did a little Googling on it and learned a lot.  Thanks for the information.


----------



## JamesM

ElaineG said:


> Thank you, Outsider, that was precisely the analogy I was trying to draw back in Post #23. No one on "the other side" of the argument has taken up the intterracial marriage issue yet, though.


 
Well, what are the odds that you are going to find someone on this thread that is "on the other side" in the first place?

This strikes me a little like Rush Limbaugh when he says that no one is calling in to oppose what he is saying, so he must be right.   I don't think the lack of someone taking up the opposite side of a question is proof that the position is somehow more valid, particularly when the participating group's general leaning is in one particular direction already.

I honestly doubt that anyone will argue _for_ segregation on this thread, myself included.


----------



## ElaineG

> Well, what are the odds that you are going to find someone on this thread that is "on the other side" in the first place?


I meant someone on the other side of the gay marriage issue. I want to know what is different about the status of interracial marriage, legally and culturally, in 1966, and the status of gay marriage now. 

I want to know how the arguments against interracial marriage then are distinguishable and different from the arguments against gay marriage now (the arguments that were advanced against decriminalizing interracial marriage included tradition, Biblical authority, cultural revulsion and moral purity, among others).


----------



## JamesM

ElaineG said:


> I meant someone on the other side of the gay marriage issue. I want to know what is different about the status of interracial marriage, legally and culturally, in 1966, and the status of gay marriage now.
> 
> I want to know how the arguments against interracial marriage then are distinguishable and different from the arguments against gay marriage now (the arguments that were advanced against decriminalizing interracial marriage included tradition, Biblical authority, cultural revulsion and moral purity, among others).


 
And my point is... if you are sincerely wanting to know how they are different, you would have to engage with someone who believes that they are different. I'm suggesting that you're not likely to find such a person on this board, given what I've read here.

I suppose we'll see. 

I was ten years old in 1966, so I didn't pay much attention to those types of discussions then. Personally, I'd have to do quite a bit of reading before I would even know what the arguments against interracial marriage were. I wonder how widespread the "Biblical authority" argument was. I cannot think of anything in the Bible that expressly forbids interracial marriage, and there are certainly plenty of examples in the Bible of interracial and interethnic marriages. Having seen the way that the FRC and "conservative Christians" have been used interchangeably on this thread, I have a little skepticism about people's ability to distinguish between a loud but very small minority and the larger group they claim to represent. (But then, that's borne out by the confusion of "Islamic terrorists" and Muslims in general. It's an ongoing muddiness of thinking.)


----------



## cuchuflete

Now that we have wrung out some pieces of FRC strategic and tactical points, would anyone care to state why secularism is or is not either "new" or comparable to a "religion" or is or is not a "new religion"?   I think that such an idea is utter rubbish, and is just a tactical slogan used by opponents of church and state separation.  

Society has continued to evolve, with laws following not too many decades behind.  Some in the forefront of societal change are religions and religious people, often united in recent decades with those not professing any strong religious leanings.  While this may strike some as a case of 'strange bedfellows', it has happened, and puts the lie to the notion that social progress is contrary to religion, and also to the idea that those in favor of church/state separation are anti-religious.

Where is the proof that (1)there is a broad anti-religious movement, (2) that it is, in itself, religious in structure or practice, and (3) that even if (1) and (2) were to exist, that any religions are under attack?


----------



## ElaineG

> I was ten years old in 1966, so I didn't pay much attention to those types of discussions then. Personally, I'd have to do quite a bit of reading before I would even know what the arguments against interracial marriage were. I wonder how widespread the "Biblical authority" argument was. I cannot think of anything in the Bible that expressly forbids interracial marriage, and there are certainly plenty of examples in the Bible of interracial and interethnic marriages.


 
The Biblical authority arguments were very prevalent.  God was also a motiviating factor in the failed anti-interracial marriage Constitutional amendment from the early 20th century.  (There really is nothing new under the sun!)

I don't have access to the briefs in _Loving_ and related cases here at home, but I have discovered that if you Google a bit, you can find hate sites that make the same Biblical arguments against intterracial marriage today.     I refuse to link to them on principle, but you will see that the arguments stem from the idea that God separated the nations, and forbade Israel to mingle with the other nations.

That's the problem with Biblical authority -- I think you start with the principle you believe in, and then you find text to back it up. Googling just now, I even found one site that argued that the Bible expressly prohibits interracial marriage, but _does not_ prohibit homosexual marriage.


----------



## JamesM

Well, first of all, you know that I agree with you about the FRC's tactics, cuchuflete.

I cannot "prove" any broad anti-religious movement, but I can point to purely personal and subjective changes that I've noticed in my 30 years as an adult. Let me bring up one example.

A local church in a nearby community - Oak Park - submitted plans to the County and the local zoning advisory committee for their new facility. It was a very traditional stone structure, much like a church you would find on the East Coast, set far back from the main road and not directly adjacent to any residential tracts. Since Oak Park was not incorporated, the committee had only advisory powers. Nevertheless, they lobbied strongly for rejection of the plans by the County. Why? Because the church steeple would be an "eyesore" (the actual word used) causing aesthetic damage to the community. The contention of the zoning advisory board was that the church should not include anything architecturally that would distinguish itself from other non-residential structures in the community. This was ignored by the County and the church was granted permission to go ahead with construction.

I know that this is one isolated example, but it is not an aberration. Our church is going through a similar problem with our construction. 

This is not neutrality. This is not "live and let live." There is definitely something beyond neutrality happening when a church steeple is considered an eyesore. 

This is not something that would have occurred 30 years ago, or I'd even venture to say 20 years ago. This is a shift in something. 

An earlier poster made a point (I'm sorry, I can't scroll up far enough to credit it now) about an unexamined prejudice against things religious that is presumed to be "right." It is difficult to pinpoint but it does show up, in my opinion, in examples such as the steeple "eyesore." That any advisory council (being essentially made up of politicians) would declare a steeple an eyesore indicates that there is more than indifference going on here.

How this relates to gay marriage is not clear to me, but you're not asking that right now. I think the two have gotten muddled in some people's minds. Nevertheless, I would say as more of a middle-of-the-road Christian than anything, that I recognize a sea change in the public treatment of the interface of church and society. Somehow, "separation of Church and State" appears to translate to "separation of religion and public society" to some degree. This is by all means new, compared to the 70s or 80s.

[edit]

If you'd like to see the kind of aesthetic damage this church wreaked,  here's a link to their home page with an image of the church in the header:  http://www.thechurchoftheepiphany.org/


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> What does monogamy have to do with same sex marriage?... Or secularism and religion, for that matter?



Everything. If you read the article I quoted (actually it's a whole book online) you'll realize that when the author talks about the institution of marriage, he implicitly or explicitly refers to a heterosexual monogamous marriage. 



Outsider said:


> Only if you redefine it to allow everyone in.


Once you open the door of matrimony to other people other than a man and a woman, it's just a matter of time until another group will be knocking at the door. As I stated in another thread, marriage is a social institution subservient to family. Having kids and raising kids has been one of its main purposes since its inception. That's what the Bible says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, and will be joined to his wife. And they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2.24). This is what Howard Clinebell says about the purposes of marriage: _The first is reproduction or parenting -- the need to complete oneself in one's children. As Paul Tillich once observed, the biblical idea that mates become "one flesh"(Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh, Genesis 2:24) goes beyond intercourse in its full expression. Two persons literally become one flesh in the joining of genes in their children. _http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1900&C=1712

This might not be the only purpose of marriage but it's the one that differentiates marriage from other type of relationships between a man and a woman: friendship, acquaintances, co-workers, etc. If you take the purpose of reproduction/raising children away, you could marry, for instance, your best female friend or male friend. Why did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rule that the denial of same-sex marriage licenses couples violated the Massachusetts Constitution? Because it didn't say that marriage was between a man and a woman. When the Constitution was written, none of the framers thought it was necessary to clarify that point.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> ...marriage is a social institution subservient to family. Having kids and raising kids has been one of its main purposes since its inception. That's what the Bible says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, and will be joined to his wife. And they will become one flesh."



And, as I have pointed out in other threads in which you have participated, this argument, with or without irrelevant biblical quotations (more on why they are so meaningless today later), is not even as good as thin gruel.

First, many people get married, and I'm speaking of heterosexual couples in Massachusetts and other states, with no interest in or plans for bearing children.  By your logic, they should not be allowed to marry.  Many other people marry only to discover that one or both are biologically incapable of parenting.  I suppose their marriages should also be anulled by your rules.  And then there are those who marry after child-bearing age.  Biology again intervenes in such a manner that they shouldn't, by your standards, be allowed to marry.

I dismiss the marriage=child bearing argument, as it doesn't hold up for millions of married couples.  Yes, it is the 'normal' condition for a majority.  But you either exclude the minority from getting married,  or stop hanging your hat on this flimsy argument.  

Now, to you biblical quote.  I don't see the word child or children or procreation in it.  Yes, it speaks of sexual union.
Even in biblical times that didn't always mean procreation for each and every couple.  Howard Clinebell's thoughts on the matter don't change the facts.  Millions of married couples are either unwilling or unable to produce offspring, and they are not denied the legal right to join in matrimony.  

Finally, millions of marriages end in divorce, so the one man plus one woman plus children argument fails again.  Would you disallow remarriage for those who didn't do it the way you and the Bible and Mr. Clinebill prescribe on their first attempt?  

Your argument, and maybe even the intent of the Bible, may have been that marriages should produce kids.  That's ok.  If you want to limit marriage in your church to those who pass fertility tests and sign pledges to procreate, that's your business and that of your co-parishioners, and none of mine.
It is not a pertinent argument in legal marriage, unless you want to impose your particular religious beliefs on all those who do not share them, both Christians and members of other faiths and the unreligious as well.  

By your last paragraph, married heterosexual couples who do not procreate may as well be "just friends".  That's silliness.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:
			
		

> How this relates to gay marriage is not clear to me, but you're not asking that right now. I think the two have gotten muddled in some people's minds. Nevertheless, I would say as more of a middle-of-the-road Christian than anything, that I recognize a sea change in the public treatment of the interface of church and society. Somehow, "separation of Church and State" appears to translate to "separation of religion and public society" to some degree. This is by all means new, compared to the 70s or 80s.



I am disturbed by the tale of the steeple.  I haven't come across that sort of prejudice before, but don't doubt that your description is factual.  

I think you are definitely on to something in stating that church and state separation may be morphing, in some places at least, into society and religion tensions.  Around this corner of the US, such tensions are unseen, but now we get to the interesting part...

Is there a correlation, do you think, between the growing participation of religiously motivated lobbying groups, such as the FRC, in public policy, and the tensions or calls for separation of religion and civil society?  I don't presume to know which came first if there is such a chicken and egg question.  I'm just asking if the two might be feeding off one another.

As an aside, I have a church steeple in my back yard, and another just down the street (this one) and both are lovely.  I couldn't imagine my village without both.  The idea that a church steeple spoils the view makes me wonder what's in the water some people drink.

I just did some reading about Oak Park, and that leads to yet another question.  The town has an average household income far above the national average.  That sometimes correlates closely with
membership in, or support for, more conservative political groups.  The Episcopal Church has been very publicly progressive in its stance towards homosexual clergy.   Should we connect those dots?
Is the seeming harassment of the church coming from the right side of the political spectrum?

That may be way off the mark, but as JamesM lives there, he should be able to guide us.


edit: http://www.city-data.com/elec/elec-OAK-PARK-CA.html shows quite a few contributors to both major parties, PACs, and their candidates...no obvious political leanings are shown by the political contribution data.


----------



## Everness

JamesM said:


> I'm not in the least suggesting that legalizing gay marriage will lead to mothers marrying their sons.  However...
> 
> There is an underlying issue which I have attempted to bring up before on this thread and have not been able to engage anyone in.  One of the arguments for gay marriage on this thread is to be more inclusive, to extend marriage to more of "us".  While this doesn't immediately bring into question other types of marriage that are outlawed, it does bring up the question of where and why the line is drawn to exclude some people.
> 
> If an adult mother and an adult son wish to marry each other, to use the argument proposed for gay marriage, why should they not be able to?  What give society the right to say what goes on their bedroom?
> 
> Please keep in mind that I support gay marriage, so this is not "the thin edge of the wedge" argument.  What I'm saying is, when you re-examine and re-define one forbidden type of marriage, it does bring up the philosophical question about other types of banned marriages - brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter, even 1st cousin/1st cousin in most states in the U.S.
> 
> In other words, if one of the chief arguments _for_ gay marriage is expanding the civil contract to include more people who wish to enter into it and that religious beliefs and outdated established social taboos should no longer apply, what justification do you use to prohibit these other types of marriage?  They are also between consenting adults (presuming both _are_ adults.)  They are willing to commit to the relationship legally and accept all the legal consequences of that decision.
> 
> What then do you use as a basis to determine that they should not get married?  Or do you?




James,

The best post of the thread. I'm a Christian in recovery but the way you think might bring this stray sheep back into the flock. 

It's clear that supporters of same-sex marriages won't address the issue of drawing the line because it would jeopardize the advancement of their cause. For thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a woman. Even Bush got that right. As soon as we open the doors of the marriage club to gays and lesbians, other people will apply for membership. The only legal and logical way to avoid this outcome is to place the following sign on the door of this exclusive club: "No further applications will be accepted. We know that it makes no sense and it's discriminatory but who said life was fair? Sorry."

But I think it's too late to raise some of these concerns or questions. How do we know that straight men have not been marrying straight men and straight women have not been marrying straight women in Massachusetts, the only state in which gay marriage is legal? Is there a gay or lesbian test people need to take before they get married or they just go with what the groom or bride say?


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> I'm a Christian in recovery but the way you think might bring this stray sheep back into the flock.  And on returning to the flock, would you please stop referring to women, even in warped humor, as 'sluts'.
> 
> It's clear that supporters of same-sex marriages won't address the issue of drawing the line because it would jeopardize the advancement of their cause.  I've addressed it, and JamesM has replied.  Drawing the line, as you call it, where you have said it belongs, with heterosexual union for the purpose of making babies, would require excluding many heterosexual couples.  Allowing homosexuals to marry might
> in some odd way provoke others who have made no prior claim for marriage rights to appear, and appeal for inclusion.
> If and when that might occur, the answer would depend on the broad societal attitudes in place at the time.
> 
> If, for example, poligamists were to petition for the right to legally marry multiple spouses in, say, 2056, then the issue would be contested at that time.  If social values were such that politicians could 'safely' go with the herd, the right might be so extended. If not, they would do nothing.  I think it is a rather farfetched scenario at this date, but I won't pass judgment _a priori_ on what future decades may bring.   Nor would I worry about it now.  It is possible, but highly unlikely to occur in my lifetime, and my children and eventual grandchildren will doubtless be better qualified than I am to address the issues of their era.
> 
> You and I have already agreed that marriage, as a legal institution, has evolved before.  Why should it be cast in concrete in its current form?  Slavery was smiled upon by 'civilized' society and law for thousands of years.  Society, and then law, changed that time-honored institution.  The Bible has many mentions of slaves, often just in passing, so we can't look for help from that perspective.  How many times does the Bible refer to 'kings' and 'kingdoms'?  They were a staple of conventional society, religion and law for thousands of years.
> 
> For thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a woman. Just like slavery and kings were ordinary, accepted, commonplace institutions.
> 
> As soon as we open the doors of the marriage club to gays and lesbians, other people will apply for membership.   Do you really believe what you wrote?  "As soon as..."?  Who is waiting, straining at the bit, to be next?  Sure, it's possible, but how likely is it that the next petition will come quickly, or be taken seriously?    By the way, you previously referrred to marriage as being for 'all of us', and now it's a club.  Which side of the definition are you on?
> 
> The only legal and logical way to avoid this outcome is to place the following sign on the door of this *exclusive* club:  (I just added the emphasis for you.) "No further applications will be accepted. We know that it makes no sense and it's discriminatory but who said life was fair? Sorry."  Isn't that what dicatators say?
> 
> But I think it's too late to raise some of these concerns or questions. How do we know that straight men have not been marrying straight men and straight women have not been marrying straight women in Massachusetts, the only state in which gay marriage is legal? Is there a gay or lesbian test people need to take before they get married or they just go with what the groom or bride say?



We have every reason to believe that straight men marry straight men...it's completely logical based on the known fact that homosexuals marry straight folks, and vice versa.  So what!  Does any of that threaten the institution of marriage, or any religious belief? It may be counter to the teachings of some religions, but those religions are still out there, believing what they believe, and teaching what they teach.  

I'm really troubled at the lack of attention you have given to bi-sexuals.  Just think! When poligamy is legalized, they could marry both men and women at the same time.  That might really get the goat of the FRC...but who said life is fair? 

 Yeah, I know, that's what dictators say.  


Let's add some more kindling:  What if the proposed gay marriage extension were to become common beyond the borders of Massachusetts, as it may, some day?  Would you assume that the members of such marriages would be Christians, at least some of them?  Would that make them anti-secularists?


----------



## .   1

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Everness* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> *Genesis 2.19-24*
> 
> _19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. _
> _20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. _
> _21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. _
> _22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man._
> _23 The man said,_
> _"This is now bone of my bones_
> _and flesh of my flesh;_
> _she shall be called 'woman,'_
> _for she was taken out of man."_
> _24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh._
> 
> Bottom line? Marriage has evolved but it has remained *predominantly **heterosexual *and *monogamic *over centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> So this is the prescription for Adam and Eve.
> Where is the proscription of Peter and Steve?
> Where is the proscription of Adam and Eve and Maeve?
> 
> .,,
Click to expand...

G'day Everness,
You have quoted the Bible to attempt to support your argument but you have not responded to my question questioning your interpretation of the Bible.
Are you not interested in responding because I bore you or because you can not answer the question?

.,,


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> I am disturbed by the tale of the steeple. I haven't come across that sort of prejudice before, but don't doubt that your description is factual.
> 
> I think you are definitely on to something in stating that church and state separation may be morphing, in some places at least, into society and religion tensions. Around this corner of the US, such tensions are unseen, but now we get to the interesting part...
> 
> Is there a correlation, do you think, between the growing participation of religiously motivated lobbying groups, such as the FRC, in public policy, and the tensions or calls for separation of religion and civil society? I don't presume to know which came first if there is such a chicken and egg question. I'm just asking if the two might be feeding off one another.


 
I think that the PACs are a reaction from some people in the religious community to what appears to be a loss of moral guidance based on their religious principles. That said, I think they are a mistake - a serious mistake. I love this discussion because it has made me think quite a bit about subjects I don't always think about. PACs as a religio-political mixture is one of those subjects.

If a group of like-minded people, Christian and non-Christian, wish to band together and create a PAC to lobby for a political cause, whatever it might be, I don't see a problem. If the money funding it is from private individuals and even corporations it follows the same model as any other PAC. However, if a PAC is funded through donations to churches, this adds another layer to the picture. It takes away the representative nature of the contribution, gives power (much like Union bosses' power) to steer money in ways that may or not be the will of the people who have made their contributions and it, by default, makes the particular religious community a political entity as well. 

I have to think more about this, but it has always vaguely disturbed me. I'm a Presbyterian and our church is not exactly politically neutral,  choosing to involve itself at the national level at times with things that are very divisive and controversial with the rank-and-file member. It is this political stance, taken by a body whose function, in my opinion, is not politically related at all, that disturbs me. 

Now there are many Christians who feel that social justice is a primary function of the Christian church. I believe that is true, but I also believe that it gets distorted when some distant church head takes a stand that may or not be representative of those he is supposed to represent. If social action is warranted, I believe it is best to have it happen at the grass-roots level by individuals personally motivated to make a change. This "spokesperson" role is simply counter-productive, in my opinion. 



> As an aside, I have a church steeple in my back yard, and another just down the street (this one) and both are lovely. I couldn't imagine my village without both. The idea that a church steeple spoils the view makes me wonder what's in the water some people drink.
> 
> I just did some reading about Oak Park, and that leads to yet another question. The town has an average household income far above the national average. That sometimes correlates closely with
> membership in, or support for, more conservative political groups.


 
You found better data than I could have provided. Also, it's important to keep in mind that this is an affluent community in California, thirty minutes away from Hollywood. If anything, affluence in a Hollywood economy tends to lean in the opposite direction of conservative. 

Thanks for this discussion. It prompted me to go out and buy two books on Ethics this evening. What I'm seeing is that I have more questions than answers in this area and that I have some more thinking to do in this area (as well as others.)


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> G'day Everness,
> You have quoted the Bible to attempt to support your argument but you have not responded to my question questioning your interpretation of the Bible.
> Are you not interested in responding because I bore you or because you can not answer the question?
> 
> .,,


 
If you don't mind, I'll jump in here. There are actually several places in the Bible that proscribe homosexual relations, and at the same time there is disagreement about their interpretation. 

The Old Testament proscriptions are difficult for me, personally, because they are primarily in Leviticus, which is a very rigorous and detailed description of how to live a "kosher" life, basically (I suppose "righteous life" would be a better phrase... a life acceptable to God's purity). It also states clearly in Leviticus that you can't pick and choose the rules set down there or it is the equivalent to breaking all the rules. In order to live our lives in harmony with Leviticus, Christians would have to live much like the most conservative of the Orthodox Jews. (As a simple example, ham sandwiches with mayonnaise are as much a violation of Leviticus as a man sleeping with a man, as are many of the tuna or hamburger casseroles served at most church functions  ). Nevertheless, there is a "hunt and pick" style that gets applied to Leviticus by many people with complete disregard for its framework.

There are also New Testament references to groups of people who live in a way that is contrary to a sanctified life and who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Included in the list are homosexuals (depending on your interpretation of a specific word in the passage it either means simply homosexuals or gay male prostitutes, which is a HUGE topic in itself), but what often gets glossed over by many of us Christians is that this same list includes people who have affairs, the effiminate, people who sleep together out of wedlock, drunkards, liars, people who revile others, people who swindle others. (If you're interested, the primary passage is I Corinthians 6:9.) Somehow these do not get treated on an equal footing, though, when being discussed. It troubles me when this happens. An unethical stock broker, swindling clients out of money in their accounts, falls into the same category as however you are interpreting the word homosexual in this passage. I don't see the same attention brought to bear on that, though.

All this is moot, though, if you think the Bible is not relevant anyway. From the way you were asking, though, it seemed like you might be interested in the actual passages related to homosexuality. (Perhaps someone else can fill in the Old Testament passages. I honestly have trouble applying them to anything post-resurrection, myself.)

[edit] (A little Googling turned up a few more New Testament passages often cited - Romans 1:26-27, where Paul indicates that homosexuality was the immoral result of a life of idolatry and I Timothy 1:9-10 where Paul sternly warns Timothy about unrighteous ways that will not lead to a holy life, homosexuality being one of those ways. I'm just including them here in case you'd like to read the source passages. www.biblegateway.com has a great search engine for finding passages quickly.)


----------



## LouisaB

It's brilliant that we are now mentioning specific examples, such as James M's church steeple, because it's becoming very clear to me some of our apparent differences on this thread are down to the really obvious fact many of us are from different countries! That may seem a 'no-brainer' on an international forum, but I've been one of the worst offenders myself in not realising how very different things are in the US from the UK - and indeed how they vary even from State to State. I think it's possible some other posters here are unaware of how things stand outside the US.

So let me give some examples of how things are in the UK. 

The climate:

Here, religion as a political force is virtually non-existent, and politicians do not refer to personal religious beliefs or convictions. I don't even know if any of our senior politicians are Christians, or profess to be. Our laws are (relatively) liberal. Homosexuality became legal throughout the UK in 1967, and the age of consent was reduced first from 21 to 18, and since 2000 has been fixed at 16, achieving parity with heterosexual relationships. The most hotly contested political move in this arena was the repeal in 2003 of the infamous 'Clause 28' which had made it illegal for local councils _actively to promote_ homosexuality in schools. This is now legal. Gay 'weddings' are NOT yet legal, but the Civil Partnership Act (effective from December 2005) has allowed civil ceremonies which give gay couples effectively the same rights as married couples, only without the name. A Civil Partnership actually gives more rights than those currently enjoyed by co-habiting (but unmarried) heterosexual partners.

Some specifics:

Ostensibly, Church and State are joined in Britain, because the Head of the Church of England is the Queen. In actual fact, it's a nominal role, and Christianity is no longer even seen as the 'official religion'. Rules which apply to Christianity apply also to other religions. All should be treated as equal.

In practice, laws which are applied against Christians are rarely used against other religions because of political considerations. Thus, a couple of months ago, a BA employee was dismissed for wearing a religious symbol at work - she wore a cross. Children have also been sent home from school for the same 'offence'. Until recently, such sanctions were rarely applied to those of other religion, but the climate is changing. On October 19th this year, the Courts ruled it was legal for local authorities to insist Muslim women have their faces uncovered when teaching children, although this is specifically against their religion.

These sanctions are not applied to political groups. In a library in Berkshire, the Council forbade the local school to put up a flier advertising their Nativity Play, but permitted an advertisement for a lecture tour by Tony Blair's ex aide, Alastair Cameron.

Freedom of speech is still (just) protected for religions in the UK. Last year, however, there was a move to make it illegal for a religion to claim anything which could be offensive to others, such as Jesus saying 'The way to the Father is through me'. Thus, in the name of tolerance and liberalism, it would have been illegal to quote certain passages from the Bible (or the Koran). For the first time I can remember at all, one or two Church figures did actually speak out about this, and because all religions were in agreement, the law was quietly scrapped.

I don't want to try and give anybody a lecture, and it may be this is not interesting to people in other countries anyway, but it might shed some light on the UK viewpoint. Here, our religious 'spokespeople' are almost entirely silent, and the idea of anyone finding them frightening in any way would actually be a joke. I'm sure the Archbishop of Canterbury must have said_ something_ about current affairs recently, but I can't remember it.The Archbishop of York does rather more, but it is always religious rather than political. The closest he came to any kind of protest about the war in Iraq was a personal vigil and fast in which he prayed for world peace. I think this is right. I don't believe religious pressure groups _should_ impact on State decisions.

But I do also wish the State would have a little more toleration to religion. I am concerned, for example, about the decision of the Olympic Committee (apparently after consultation with the UK authorities) to hold the London Games during Ramadan. This will discriminate against Muslim countries, whose atheletes may be having to compete at a time when their religion insists they must fast. That's not _my _religion, but I wish we could show it a little more respect.

Many apologies if I'm duplicating anything already said in this thread. I've tried to refresh my memory of the whole thing, but there's rather a lot of it....


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Is there a gay or lesbian test people need to take before they get married or they just go with what the groom or bride say?


Is there a heterosexual test that people need to take before they get married?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> For thousands of years marriage has been between a man and a woman. Even Bush got that right. As soon as we open the doors of the marriage club to gays and lesbians, other people will apply for membership. The only legal and logical way to avoid this outcome is to place the following sign on the door of this exclusive club: "No further applications will be accepted. We know that it makes no sense and it's discriminatory but who said life was fair? Sorry."



Who really wants to limit the club's membership, and why?
It would appear that nobody's membership would be affected by anyone else joining the club. If Mr & Mrs X are a happily married couple (or even if they're an unhappily married couple), their marriage won't be affected if the club admits Mr & Mr Y, or Mrs & Mrs Z.

This is not like membership of the WMD club, to be a member of the marriage club is not automatically to threaten the existing members.

I don't understand you Everness, so may I ask a few personal questions? Feel free not to answer if you wish, I won't think any the less of you…

a) Are you married?
b) Is your marriage an on-going and developing relationship?
c) Are you secure in your relationship with your spouse?
d) How would your marriage be altered by your local legislature granting recognition to same-sex marriage?

My problem with marriage is totally opposite to yours.
I think that 'standard' marriage is in tatters and getting worse daily.
It is now so much in disrepute that people enter in quasi-marriages in many parts of the world without going through the rituals of either church or state ceremonies.

They see married people around them who are on their fourth or fifth spouse. 
They see married people around them who have three or more parents for the offspring.
They see married people around them who seek, and are granted, a divorce after a few months of marriage.
They see a society which accepts this.
They see pre-nuptial agreements which seem to assume that the marriage in question will collapse.
Is it any wonder that they decide to shun the club?

If Marriage is a religious institution, which has drifted to be something which the State formally recognises. Howabout the Religious Right go to the Supreme Court and demand that marriage be re-instated as a contract for life? That divorce be outlawed. Why aren't they fighting to have civil marriage brought back into line with religious marriage?




> But I think it's too late to raise some of these concerns or questions. How do we know that straight men have not been marrying straight men and straight women have not been marrying straight women in Massachusetts, the only state in which gay marriage is legal?


Would it matter if they had? All shades of sexuality have availed of both Church and State marriages for centuries.


It seems that you need to go and buy new underwear. Ones with a smaller waistband. It appears to me that you seem to get your knickers in a twist very easily, and that can't be comfortable - but the answer, I would suggest, lies with you.


----------



## cuchuflete

So far JamesM has responded, gently and thoughtfully, and with a thought-provoking case history, to the thread topic-- that of the possibility of secularism existing and having some consequence for religion in the US.  LouisaB has given some examples of what look like attempts at finding an equilibrium in a dynamic UK setting.

Biblical quotations about sexuality and marriage are not relevent to explaining today's societies' lurches to the left and right, in their various attempts to establish balance or imbalance.  That's right, imbalance.  The status quo of 1950 is gone.  Some people want it back.  Others want greater distance between then and now.

Some religions are rather well into political activity, and while most use PACs (Political Action Committees...essentially money laundering organizations that receive funds from individuals and companies and other organizations, and then give those funds to political candidates and parties...all in an attempt to circumvent laws against "buying" elections.), some get directly into political statements and lobbying.

Concurrently, we are told, with just a bit of anecdotal evidence so far, that there is a new secularist (anti-religious) movement, that would limit, constrain, restrict, or otherwise act against "Religion".  Is there more information available on this subject?  

Are we conducting a relatively fact-free debate about a false hypothesis, or is there really something going on here beyond
a pretext for yet another discussion of homosexuality and minority and majority rights?  

Everness has said that he doesn't believe homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage.  He still doesn't like the idea.  It might, or in his view is likely to, invite other attempts to expand the definition of marriage.  Marriage, he has told us, has evolved, but it seems like he's had about as much evolution as he can be comfortable with at the moment.  OK.  He's certainly entitled to want to keep his exclusive club exclusive.   But what has any of that got to do with a presumed 'secular religion' acting against other religions?   

Liberals/progressives like to think that social change is generally a good idea, and they are optimists about the likelihood that change will be successful in improving societies.
Conservatives (not to be confused with any political party, please) acknowledge that change will occur, but they are less sanguine about its prospects for making things better, and prefer change to come gradually. 

Changing the legal limits of marriage is an area where these political and social philosophies are in opposition.  Why have some people taken this dispute as an example of presumed secularist combat against the institution of religion?  It still looks like a debate tactic to me--declare yourself the victim in order to rally support from the otherwise indifferent masses.
Nothing gets the blood flowing like someone screeching, "To  the ramparts!  We're being attacked!"


----------



## JamesM

> Concurrently, we are told, with just a bit of anecdotal evidence so far, that there is a new secularist (anti-religious) movement, that would limit, constrain, restrict, or otherwise act against "Religion". Is there more information available on this subject?




I found this interesting editorial from an institute established to study secularism.  I recommend it as reading and food for thought regarding secularism in the U.S.  I'd like to have seen more links to the supporting data, but this is an editorial, after all.   I think the man raises very interesting questions and points out a difference in the character of secularism in the U.S. vs. secularism in Germany and England, for example. 

http://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/AcademicResources/values/ISSSC/publications/hardandsoft.htm

The institute is funded by a grant from a Swiss organization.  I'm going to be exploring it further to see if there are any hard data presented to back some of this man's observations.

As a teaser, here are some of the interesting issues raised in the article:

_"One challenge for soft secularism is to draw finer lines on what is permissible under the First Amendment and to defend that territory strongly while opening up both political and other public discourse to intelligent religious discussion, including from the standpoint of hard secularism. _
_Another challenge, for both soft and hard secularism, is to offer critiques of religion that do not mirror a tendency found in many defenses of religion; namely, to compare the  best of one’s own tradition with the worst of the other’s.  As in: The true personification of secularism is George Orwell and the true personification of religion is Osama bin Laden."_

(NOTE: I had to press on beyond the term "liberal social agenda" towards the beginning of the article, which often is used as a catch phrase in conservative writing as a blanket indictment of a group of people.  It was only until later in the article that I realized that the man apparently is using the term to mean exactly what it says, and contrasts it the political activism of the conservative right.)


----------



## JamesM

> So far JamesM has responded, gently and thoughtfully, and with a thought-provoking case history, to the thread topic-- that of the possibility of secularism existing and having some consequence for religion in the US. LouisaB has given some examples of what look like attempts at finding an equilibrium in a dynamic UK setting.


 
Thank you for the compliment, cuchuflete.  As I said before, I am appreciating this discussion very muich.

I have another example from recent personal experience which is not quite so clear-cut but might actually stimulate some more discussion in this area.  (As a note - I don't live in Oak Park, but in a community in the same County. Just wanted to clear up any confusion that might arise from a comment someone made about me living there.)

A few years back, the various churches in town that have praise bands put together a sort of "battle of the bands" in a local park ("battle", of course, is a silly name and wasn't the official name; it was the nickname the bands gave it.)  This was a way of fostering some interaction among people from the various churches in a very neutral environment.

The bands are not loud.  My son plays electric guitar in a few bands with his buddies and I can guarentee you that none of the bands approached a fifth of the volume in the park that he and his buddies crank out in his bedroom.    Most were primarily acoustic groups.  The stage was angled so that it faced away from local houses and toward an empty schoolyard (the concert was on Sunday.)  Virtually all of the attendees were from the local churches and no attempts were made to identify who was who or to promote a particular point of view.  No one spoke, other than to introduce the next "act" and the church it came from.  In other words, there was no preaching or spoken "proselytizing" going on.  It was simply a showcase of bands, much like any other showcase of bands which happen fairly regularly in our parks here.

Nevertheless, one resident whose house faced the park complained that they found the material personally offensive.  As a result, the churches were no longer granted a permit to use that park for the event.  They _were_ allowed to hold the event, but only in a park that was isolated completely from all residential areas.

Keep in mind that this same treatment is not given to Rap group showcases or Alternative Rock showcases, despite the fact that numerous local people have complained that they found the words offensive and the noise level excessive.  

The only conclusion I've been able to draw is that these are not seen as equally offensive, nor is it solely based on the number of complaints.  It has specifically to do with the religious content of one type of music, even if that music is presented in exactly the same way as any other type of music.

This is, once again, only one of many examples I can bring up from the last ten years, living in a community that is more than typically wealthy, more than typically educuated, and more than typically diverse culturally.


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> I found this interesting editorial from an institute established to study secularism.
> 
> http://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/AcademicResources/values/ISSSC/publications/hardandsoft.htm
> 
> The institute is funded by a grant from a Swiss organization.  I'm going to be exploring it further to see if there are any hard data presented to back some of this man's observations.



A few comments
a) Do you think a college called "Trinity College" is likely to be very secular? I see the President of the College was lately vice provost of Southern Methodist University — hmmmm!
b) I see that the Posen behind the foundation is "Felix Posen, philanthropist and vice chairman of the International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews"  — hmmmm!
c) Called "a journalist and scholar" at the bottom of the piece you cite, I see the author "a prominent Catholic writer, educator, and speaker and senior religion correspondent for the New York Times from 1988 to 1997, writes “Beliefs,” a biweekly column for the Times." - according to the Boston College website — hmmmm!


----------



## JamesM

maxiogee said:


> A few comments
> a) Do you think a college called "Trinity College" is likely to be very secular? I see the President of the College was lately vice provost of Southern Methodist University — hmmmm!
> b) I see that the Posen behind the foundation is "Felix Posen, philanthropist and vice chairman of the International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews" — hmmmm!
> c) Called "a journalist and scholar" at the bottom of the piece you cite, I see the author "a prominent Catholic writer, educator, and speaker and senior religion correspondent for the New York Times from 1988 to 1997, writes “Beliefs,” a biweekly column for the Times." - according to the Boston College website — hmmmm!


 
Does this automatically invalidate his opinion?  

I think you are making the author's point for him, maxiogee.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm not sure what you mean Tony.  You have cited three names and likely religious affiliations.  I would expect religious people to participate in a discussion of religion and secularism.  In the earlier meaning of secularism, which for me is still the only meaning, separation of church and state, a person can hold both secular and religious viewpoints, both very firm.

I have some friends who graduated from Trinty College.  One is Roman Catholic, another is Jewish, and a third is indifferent to all religion. None ever complained of any religious bias there.  Here is what you can learn at Trinity's home page:



> Founded in the spring of 1823 as Washington College (the name was changed in 1845), Trinity was only the second college in Connecticut.  Although its earliest heritage was Episcopalian, its principal founder and first president having been the Rt. Rev. Thomas Brownell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, its charter prohibits the imposition of religious standards on any student, faculty members or other members of the college, consistent with the forces of religious diversity and toleration in force at the time.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Originally Posted by Everness
> I'm a Christian in recovery but the way you think might bring this stray sheep back into the flock. And on returning to the flock, would you please stop referring to women, even in warped humor, as 'sluts'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in your way to your final destination –hell- could you please refrain from telling people what to do or not do? Should I remind you that bossing around mortals is a divine prerogative and that gods don’t appreciate competition in the telling-what-to-do-and-not-to-do department? See, out of pure religious love, I’m suggesting you –not ordering you- to change your behavior. Otherwise, your path to eternal damnation will be expedited.
> 
> To others who were offended by my use of the “s” word, let me clarify that it was a fictitious dialogue inspired in a Dane Cook routine. If you can appreciate and enjoy his last HBO performance (“Vicious Circle”), my contribution will seem puritanical. Cook’s humor is quintessentially Bostonian.
> 
> It’s unfortunate that the reactions to my post (I was able to read them before they were censored) were deleted. Those posts say more about the people who wrote them than about the targeted individual (that would be me). It’s clear that I hit a nerve! But don’t worry, a good friend of mine at the Boston Psychoanalytical Society told me that the Oedipus Complex is never resolved 100% and that it’s normal for people to have this type of visceral reactions (I emailed her my post and the responses), especially when some work needs to be completed in that particular area. She recommended therapy. I would disregard her recommendation based on cost: 3 times a week is too much money!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that supporters of same-sex marriages won't address the issue of drawing the line because it would jeopardize the advancement of their cause. I've addressed it, and JamesM has replied. Drawing the line, as you call it, where you have said it belongs, with heterosexual union for the purpose of making babies, would require excluding many heterosexual couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s not the same. A man and a man and a woman and a woman don’t have the capacity to procreate. Of course they can raise children the same way any other single or married adult can do it. If a heterosexual couple doesn’t want to have babies, it’s their decision. However, they have the biological capacity to procreate. We have already discussed the pros and cons of human artificial insemination. But it's not the same as natural procreation. There are very important differences. Please pay attention to Clinebell’s last sentence in the above quote: _Two persons literally become one flesh in the joining of genes in their children._ A lesbian mom can’t get the sperm from the woman she loves. She needs to get it from a male donor who probably won’t be involved in the rearing of her child. See my point? I’m simply talking about the correspondence between design and function. Before you react, I need to clarify that (1) adoptive parenting is an excellent idea and (2) gay people are as qualified as anyone else to adopt children if they decide not to resort to artificial insemination. My point? Conception is just the beginning of the long road of parenting. Anyone has the biological capacity to procreate but good parenting is even more important and crucial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing homosexuals to marry might
> in some odd way provoke others who have made no prior claim for marriage rights to appear, and appeal for inclusion.
> If and when that might occur, the answer would depend on the broad societal attitudes in place at the time.
> 
> If, for example, poligamists were to petition for the right to legally marry multiple spouses in, say, 2056, then the issue would be contested at that time. If social values were such that politicians could 'safely' go with the herd, the right might be so extended. If not, they would do nothing. I think it is a rather farfetched scenario at this date, but I won't pass judgment a priori on what future decades may bring. Nor would I worry about it now. It is possible, but highly unlikely to occur in my lifetime, and my children and eventual grandchildren will doubtless be better qualified than I am to address the issues of their era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If  (a) gay marriage becomes the law of the land and (b) I had the time and resources, the following day I would launch a crusade to legalize polygamy. It would be unconstitutional to limit the type of people or number of people that could legally marry. I must say that as a male I don’t particularly like the idea of having more than one wife. I watched HBO’s “Big Love” and the poor guy had to overdose on Viagra to keep his 3 wifes happy! It would be fun for a couple of months but then it would become a nightmare…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I have already agreed that marriage, as a legal institution, has evolved before. Why should it be cast in concrete in its current form? Slavery was smiled upon by 'civilized' society and law for thousands of years. Society, and then law, changed that time-honored institution. The Bible has many mentions of slaves, often just in passing, so we can't look for help from that perspective. How many times does the Bible refer to 'kings' and 'kingdoms'? They were a staple of conventional society, religion and law for thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lame argument because the same societies that in the past embraced slavery also embraced monogamous heterosexual marriage. Looking back most of us agree that slavery wasn’t a good idea and gradually we got rid of it. (Then came Wal-Mart but that’s another story.) However, until now our Western civilization has never permitted marriage between partners of the same sex and people didn’t throw any fits. Slavery is altogether bad, matrimony no. Otherwise, why would gay people want to join the club?
> While we are at it, I suggest we also do away with the institution of family. Few people have noticed the origin of the word family. _[Origin: 1350–1400; ME familie < L familia a household, the slaves of a household, equiv. to famul(us) servant, slave + -ia -Y3] _http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as we open the doors of the marriage club to gays and lesbians, other people will apply for membership. Do you really believe what you wrote? "As soon as..."? Who is waiting, straining at the bit, to be next? Sure, it's possible, but how likely is it that the next petition will come quickly, or be taken seriously? By the way, you previously referrred to marriage as being for 'all of us', and now it's a club. Which side of the definition are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who would have thought 50 years ago that we would be discussing gay marriage in America? By the way, I thought you knew that there were different clubs. For instance, before you get married, you belong to the singles club. When you get married you belong to the married group. Some people like the best of both worlds and they cheat on their spouses. That’s the cheaters club, and it’s made up by married individuals who think fidelity and faithfulness are overrated. What club do you belong to?
Click to expand...


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> Does this automatically invalidate his opinion?
> 
> I think you are making the author's point for him, maxiogee.



I didn't say anything about his opinion.
I was cautioning that a seemingly independent source seems to have an "organised religion" background.

I was cautioning 'cum grano salis' - that's all.




cuchuflete said:


> I'm not sure what you mean Tony.  You have cited three names and likely religious affiliations.


As I said, I was just doing a background check which was prompted by JamesM's strange inclusion of the sentence "The institute is funded by a grant from a Swiss organization." What was that supposed to mean?

==================

Note to everness…

Can you please sort out who said what to whom in your post. You seem to be putting words into cuchuflete's mouth!

It's most confusing when people put their own words into a box proclaiming that the text is a quote from someone else.


----------



## ElaineG

> If a heterosexual couple doesn’t want to have babies, it’s their decision. However, they have the biological capacity to procreate.


 
?  I recently went to a wedding of 75 year old man to a 78 year old woman.  I highly doubt they have the "biological capacity to procreate."


----------



## Everness

. said:


> G'day Everness,
> You have quoted the Bible to attempt to support your argument but you have not responded to my question questioning your interpretation of the Bible.
> Are you not interested in responding because I bore you or because you can not answer the question?
> .,,



The fact that you bore me doesn’t play a role in my lack of response. It’s just a matter of time or lack of it. 



> So this is the prescription for Adam and Eve.Where is the proscription of Peter and Steve?Where is the proscription of Adam and Eve and Maeve?



Let me respond to your question using this analogy. If my city decides that a particular road is one-way and they put big sign at each intersection saying, “*One Way Road,*” (Positive Prescription) why would they need to add another big sign at each intersection saying, “*This Is Not a Two-Way Road*” (Negative Proscription)?  We are talking about the design and function of the institution of marriage that for thousands of years (with some exceptions here and there) regulated procreation and the raising of kids in our societies. Now we want to turn the one-way road into a two-way or multiple-lane road. Well, let's see what happens!


----------



## Everness

. said:


> Is there a heterosexual test that people need to take before they get married?
> 
> .,,



No, currently there's no heterosexual test that people need to take before they get married. But if some government official is reading this thread, he/she can come up with one. I have some ideas but they will be definitely be censored. On a more serious note, I think the following paragraph could clarify the issue. 

_The terms "gay marriage" and "straight marriage" are potentially inaccurate to the extent that they imply that the spouses are of a certain sexual orientation. A spouse in a same-sex marriage may be bisexual and not gay, and a spouse in an opposite-gender marriage may be gay or bisexual. Sexual orientation has rarely been a legal or religious qualification for marriage (a gay man could still marry a woman)._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

That does it for me!


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> ?  I recently went to a wedding of 75 year old man to a 78 year old woman.  I highly doubt they have the "biological capacity to procreate."



I wouldn't be so sure. Do you rembember the biblical story of Sarah and Abraham? 

Genesis 17:

_1 When Abram was *ninety-nine years old,* the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. 
2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."
.....
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of *ninety*?" 
18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"_

I assume you know how the story ended. If I were you, I would call this couple and suggest they use protection... just in case


----------



## AGATHA2

Kajjo said:


> Liberty, not regulation.


 
  That´s the point !!!


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> The fact that you bore me doesn’t play a role in my lack of response. It’s just a matter of time or lack of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me respond to your question using this analogy. If my city decides that a particular road is one-way and they put big sign at each intersection saying, “*One Way Road,*” (Positive Prescription) why would they need to add another big sign at each intersection saying, “*This Is Not a Two-Way Road*” (Negative Proscription)? We are talking about the design and function of the institution of marriage that for thousands of years (with some exceptions here and there) regulated procreation and the raising of kids in our societies. Now we want to turn the one-way road into a two-way or multiple-lane road. Well, let's see what happens!


As you quoted and then interpreted the Bible to shore up your argument I was hoping that you would show me how you interpreted the Bible.  I read the passage you quoted and could find nothing that proscribed homosexual marriages.
God created homosexuality and homosexuals and I am at a loss to understand how the same God could condemn His creations to a life of covert misery simply because He created them homosexual.  This seems to be a particularly meanspirited act.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> ...the same societies that in the past embraced slavery also embraced monogamous heterosexual marriage.


I couldn't have said it any better than you have.


----------



## Everness

. said:


> As you quoted and then interpreted the Bible to shore up your argument I was hoping that you would show me how you interpreted the Bible.  I read the passage you quoted and could find nothing that proscribed homosexual marriages.
> God created homosexuality and homosexuals and I am at a loss to understand how the same God could condemn His creations to a life of covert misery simply because He created them homosexual.  This seems to be a particularly meanspirited act.
> 
> .,,



I'm sorry... are we reading the same passage? Just in case, I'll post it again. Genesis 2. 20-25

_But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

 23 The man said,
       "This is now bone of my bones
       and flesh of my flesh;
       she shall be called 'woman,'
       for she was taken out of man."

 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame._

Here you have two biblical stories. One about the creation of woman and the other about the creation of marriage. Both stories go hand in hand. Pay attention to v. 25: "The *man *and his *wife *were both naked, and they felt no shame." It's crystal clear: the man is the husband and the woman is the wife. The Bible talks about an opposite-sex marriage. There's no other story about same-sex marriage or polygamy. That's what the Bible says. You might not like what the Bible says but that's what it says. I'm not sure there's a complaint book available either. If there's another way of interpreting and applying this passage, please let me know. Are this stories true stories or just symbolical and mythical ones? That's another story!


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> I couldn't have said it any better than you have.



But then we realized that slavery was a bad and exploitative institution and we did away with it. That's ok. Did matrimony follow the same path? No. Are we trying to make it more egalitarian? Yes. Are defenders of same-sex marriage attacking marriage as a bad and exploitative institution? No. Do they want to make it disappear? No. Actually, they like it so much that they want to be part of it. You're comparing apples (and you picked a bad one) and oranges. We are talking about changing the nature of marriage but not about making it history.


----------



## cuchuflete

Unanswered question left over from post#1:



> the legalization of same-sex marriage here is threatening religious liberty throughout the country.



I haven't seen a word to support this yet.




> ...*trying to rally people around the idea that religious people have rights too, and that government and society have grown increasingly secular and anti religious.*



Note carefully:  "secular AND anti religious."   This doesn't say that secular means anti-religious.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> We are talking about changing the nature of marriage but not about making it history.



No, WE are not. You are.  The nature of marriage, as a legal convention, confers specific rights and privileges on its members.  You may be talking about changing the nature of marriage.  I am not.  I am talking about extending the same rights and obligations present in marriage exactly as it exists today to more people.


----------



## .   1

When is this thread going to be split.
'Secularism: the new religion' seems to not be the same topic as 'Should homosexual people be allowed to marry'.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

JamesM said:


> The Old Testament proscriptions are difficult for me, personally, because they are primarily in Leviticus, which is a very rigorous and detailed description of how to live a "kosher" life, basically (I suppose "righteous life" would be a better phrase... a life acceptable to God's purity). It also states clearly in Leviticus that you can't pick and choose the rules set down there or it is the equivalent to breaking all the rules. In order to live our lives in harmony with Leviticus, Christians would have to live much like the most conservative of the Orthodox Jews. (As a simple example, ham sandwiches with mayonnaise are as much a violation of Leviticus as a man sleeping with a man, as are many of the tuna or hamburger casseroles served at most church functions  ). Nevertheless, there is a "hunt and pick" style that gets applied to Leviticus by many people with complete disregard for its framework.
> 
> 
> 
> All this is moot, though, if you think the Bible is not relevant anyway. From the way you were asking, though, it seemed like you might be interested in the actual passages related to homosexuality. (Perhaps someone else can fill in the Old Testament passages. I honestly have trouble applying them to anything post-resurrection, myself.)


That is the point, though isn't it? Anything "legal" in the OT is irrelevant to Christians - however... 



JamesM said:


> [edit] (A little Googling turned up a few more New Testament passages often cited - Romans 1:26-27, where Paul indicates that homosexuality was the immoral result of a life of idolatry and I Timothy 1:9-10 where Paul sternly warns Timothy about unrighteous ways that will not lead to a holy life, homosexuality being one of those ways. I'm just including them here in case you'd like to read the source passages. www.biblegateway.com has a great search engine for finding passages quickly.)





LouisaB said:


> Freedom of speech is still (just) protected for religions in the UK. Last year, however, there was a move to make it illegal for a religion to claim anything which could be offensive to others, such as Jesus saying 'The way to the Father is through me'. Thus, in the name of tolerance and liberalism, it would have been illegal to quote certain passages from the Bible (or the Koran). For the first time I can remember at all, one or two Church figures did actually speak out about this, and because all religions were in agreement, the law was quietly scrapped.


That would not have been a good thing, Louisa! 


cuchuflete said:


> Note carefully:  "secular AND anti religious."   This doesn't say that secular means anti-religious.


But it sometimes can...


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> No, WE are not. You are.  The nature of marriage, as a legal convention, confers specific rights and privileges on its members.  You may be talking about changing the nature of marriage.  I am not.  I am talking about extending the same rights and obligations present in marriage exactly as it exists today to more people.



If the extension of the same rights and obligations present in opposite-sex marriages exactly as they exist today to more people (gays and lesbians, I assume) doesn't amount to changing the nature of marriage, what will? Ah, semantics!


----------



## übermönch

. said:


> When is this thread going to be *split*.
> 'Secularism: the new religion' seems to not be the same topic as 'Should homosexual people be allowed to marry'.
> 
> .,,


Have you read the entrance post by Everness? It was about same sex marriage being "imposed" over christians , thus it would more logical to *rename *the thread instead.


----------



## ElaineG

> There's no other story about ... polygamy


 
As I said earlier in this thread, Ashkenazic Jews permitted polygamy until the early middle ages, at which time it was _rabbinically_ proscribed, and Yemenite Jews still practice it today as far as I know.



> In biblical times, polygamy was permitted. The Bible, in tolerating polygamy, gives evidence that the practice had long been an accepted social institution when these laws were written down. In the patriarchal age polygamy is regarded as an unquestioned custom.....Polygamy was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it.


 
Lots more at the following website (a respectable Jewish newsgroup, not a pro-polygamy mouthpiece):
http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML//faq/08-06.html

If the Torah was as clear as you say it is, that clarity was lost on my people for thousands of years.

Of course, I guess the Christians would say we missed the point of everything anyway


----------



## Outsider

It's a little ironic, when you think about it: monogamy was actually a Roman (i.e. secular, if not outright pagan) influence on Christianity.


----------



## cuchuflete

There are those who have trouble with simple concepts.

Legal driving in most states is a government sanctioned relationship between a vehicle and a licensed driver. Let's assume that such a relationship is permitted, but not required of anyone, at the age of 18 for the driver, and without restriction to the age of the vehicle.  

For some reason or other, the state legislature decides to pass a law extending the right to enter into that relationship to potential drivers who are 17 years old.  The permitting requirements do not change otherwise, nor does anything else concerning the rights that come with a driver's license.

Semantics?   Hardly.


----------



## Everness

Back to our original question: Is secularism the new state religion? Here's someone stating that secularism is violating the rights of a religious group in Turkey.

http://underprogress.blogs.com/weblog/2004/06/the_intolerance.html

He makes several excellent points.

First, he makes reference to a ruling:

_In its ruling, the court said that measures taken in universities "to prevent certain fundamentalist religious movements from pressuring students who do not practise the religion in question or those belonging to another religion" could be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights. Bans issued in the name of the separation of church and state could therefore be considered "necessary in a democratic society", it added."_

He then dissects the ruling. 

His first criticism is that the court is attempting to define what is and isn't a religious requirement of a Muslim. He correctly argues that if there's a separation of church and state, the state, not just the church, is also expected not to cross the separation line. In this case, the state, through the court, is apparently meddling with a particular religion violating such separation. He makes a sensible point: "If the court had limited itself to simply saying that the Turkish state can ban the wearing of a 'religious symbol', because it's belief in secularism demands it, that would have sufficed." So he isn't saying that the Turkish state can't ban the wearing of a religious symbol. It's a prerogative and duty of any state to ensure, for instance, people's safety. But the Turkish state went beyond decreeing a ban. The blogger says, "But they have stepped over the limit in passing a verdict on what the headscarf is meant or not meant to symbolise. The implication in this ruling is that a Muslim woman who wears the headscarf is associating herself with 'certain fundamentalist religious movements.' Utter nonsense." 

His second criticism has to do with something I hadn't given too much thought: who defines what is and what isn't religious. He says, _The court is basing its verdict on various assumptions, one of them being the much-heralded 'separation of church and state'. On closer examination, however, we see that this "separation" is non-existent, for how can there be 'separation' when a state can determine the limits of religion, as well determine what it means to be 'religious'?_ He's right! Where's the separation between church and state if the latter interprets and defines religion for the former? Who in the state and following which criteria defines what is and what isn't religion or religious? The moment that the state does it --as this blogger argues-- it has crossed the line and is meddling with religion.

His third criticism is a corollary of what he just said. The blogger again, "We are now faced with bans issued in the name of a certain historical, sometimes contradictory and multi-layered, often complex and unexamined, understanding of ourselves and the world. And yet secular acolytes call the religious 'supersitious'!" I agree! Who is the real superstitious here? Religious people claim that God tells them what to do or not to do. But apparently the Turkish state --among many other states-- has its own "gods" that also tell them unambiguously what to do in very complex situations. And listen to this: they are always right!

His fouth criticism has to do with the situation of Muslim women. Secular liberals think that they are liberating women from male oppression. By the way, that's one of the reasons the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The blogger argues that in actuality liberals are the ones who are oppressing women by virtue of their condescending and patronizing behavior. "But it is they who deny the Muslim woman the right to speak for herself; it is they who make unwarranted assumptions about the Muslim woman and what she feels; it is they who remove agency from her. And so it is they who are doing the 'oppressing'."

His final criticism consists in pointing out the similarities between religious fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists. "Secular fundamentalists are often not that different to their religious cousins, who they claim to hate so much; they alone know what's best for all, and they alone have knowledge of everything." Yep, they are cousins! I like how he ends his reflections: "It just so happens the two wear a different football jersey."


----------



## JamesM

Outsider said:


> It's a little ironic, when you think about it: monogamy was actually a Roman (i.e. secular, if not outright pagan) influence on Christianity.


 
I don't believe this is correct.  I'm fairly sure polygamy was still accepted in Rome long after New Testament times.  Do you have any evidence of this?  If so, I'd like to read it.   It was not a "Romanizing" influence that brought about monogamy in Christian communities.  Many of Paul's letters are warning against taking on the sexual mores of the Romans, which were looser by far than the early Christian communities.


----------



## cuchuflete

Rather than reply, point by point, to the "one blogger equals conclusive evidence" post that Everness threw up...I suggest those interested in understanding the secularist tradition in Turkey, which goes back well over a century, might want to read the first six or seven pages of this article:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_1-2_27/ai_n15694705/pg_1

There is nothing new about secularism as a fundamental part of Turkish political and religious life, and the recent governments have strong Islamic roots.  Secularism in Turkey used to be of the strong variety, and in recent years has engaged in much more dialogue with religion.

One blogger may disagree, but there is nothing, even in the bloggers statements, that could be used to honestly or accurately portray Turkish secularism as "a new religion".  

There is also nothing in Turkish history that shows its governments since Ataturk to be hostile to religion, except when it attempts to enter politics directly.


----------



## Everness

JamesM said:


> I don't believe this is correct.  I'm fairly sure polygamy was still accepted in Rome long after New Testament times.  Do you have any evidence of this?  If so, I'd like to read it.   It was not a "Romanizing" influence that brought about monogamy in Christian communities.  Many of Paul's letters are warning against taking on the sexual mores of the Romans, which were looser by far than the early Christian communities.



I'm also looking forward to his response. Most Bible commentaries place the events surrounding Abraham circa 1800 BCE, 1,000 years before Romulus founded Rome in 754 BC. Moses received the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai  sometime in the 13th Century BCE. My point? If Christianity adopted monogamy, it was as a result of the influence of Judaism and not of Rome. We sometimes forget that Christianity started out as a breakaway sect of Judaism 2000 years ago.


----------



## ElaineG

> My point? If Christianity adopted monogamy, it was as a result of the influence of Judaism and not of Rome.


 
Good grief. How many times do you have to read things before you understand them? Please read my post #174, which is the second time in this thread I have discussed the historical attitude of the ancient Jews to polygamy.

St. Augustine attributed the tradition of monogamy in Christianity to the Roman influence:



> Jesus has not spoken against polygamy though it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine, _"Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife."_ *54* African churches and African Christians often remind their European brothers that the Church's ban on polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian injunction.



 
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/poly.htm


----------



## Aprinsă

"If Christianity adopted monogamy, it was as a result of the influence of Judaism and not of Rome."

For the record, if you keep one, it is not plausible to debate the facts of Christianity between a Christian and a non-Christian when it involves faith (i.e. faith in the Bible). That is simply one of the rules of debate. Religion proves itself - that is the meaning of "faith". As for me and probably others here, the Bible is not the Truth. So, by citing the Bible as an ultimate authority, you are excluding me from this debate. Maybe you realize this, but I just thought I should point it out.

Have you read the original Bible, by the way? I can't really understand how one can have faith in a translation, unless you believe it was only translated with divine intervention.


----------



## .   1

ElaineG said:


> Good grief. How many times do you have to read things before you understand them? Please read my post #174, which is the second time in this thread I have discussed the historical attitude of the ancient Jews to polygamy.


To quote Mr. Simon;
"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

.,,


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> Good grief. How many times do you have to read things before you understand them? Please read my post #174, which is the second time in this thread I have discussed the historical attitude of the ancient Jews to polygamy.



Let's see how many times do you have to read the following article from the Jewish Encyclopedia about monogamy to understand it. 

Just in case you don't have time to read the whole article, here's a good summary of "the historical attitude of the ancient Jews to polygamy." 

_Also the polygamous marriages of some of the patriarchs are felt by the narrator (J) to need excuse and apology, as being infringements of a current monogamous ideal Even more unmistakable is the monogamous ideal displayed in the Wisdom literature._

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=730&letter=M


----------



## cuchuflete

We know that him who quoteth the Bible at length in these pages cannot play football (American and Canadian variety)  or eat escargot: _Lev_. 11.8 & 11.30.


----------



## ElaineG

Everness said:


> Let's see how many times do you have to read the following article from the Jewish Encyclopedia about monogamy to understand it.
> 
> Just in case you don't have time to read the whole article, here's a good summary of "the historical attitude of the ancient Jews to polygamy."
> 
> _Also the polygamous marriages of some of the patriarchs are felt by the narrator (J) to need excuse and apology, as being infringements of a current monogamous ideal Even more unmistakable is the monogamous ideal displayed in the Wisdom literature._
> 
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=730&letter=M


 
I'm sorry, I regard that article from the Jewish encyclopedia as a prettied up version of history. I minored in Judaic Studies, and as much as I would like to say that the ancient practices of the Hebrews met some sort of ideal, that's just not the case.

In any event, if you read that article that you cite (rated only a 2.87 out of 5 by users of that encylopedia), you will see that are several underlying historical debates that it tries to sweep under the rug.

The polygamous practices of Yemeni Jews who have lived apart from Western Jewry since the exile and are thought to preserve in many ways the practices of ancient Jewry are illustrative.
I can recommend several books, if you are interested.

By the way, do you think St. Augustine's view of Christian history was erroneous? Have you read Augustine on marriage?


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> Let's see how many times do you have to read the following article from the Jewish Encyclopedia about monogamy to understand it.
> 
> Just in case you don't have time to read the whole article, here's a good summary of "the historical attitude of the ancient Jews to polygamy."
> 
> _Also the polygamous marriages of some of the patriarchs are felt by the narrator (J) to need excuse and apology, as being infringements of a current monogamous ideal Even more unmistakable is the monogamous ideal displayed in the Wisdom literature._
> 
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=730&letter=M





And how many times will you distort by selective quotations to cover up incomprehension?

Here are a few more selected snippits from the source you link to:



> It must be remembered that in the Jewish view the purpose of marriage was not to satisfy carnal desires, but to raise up a family; *hence it was not uncommon that a man was permitted and even urged to take a second wife when this purpose was unfulfilled.*





> In Mohammedan parts of Europe, as well as in the Orient generally,* the law of monogamy was not, and is not, formally accepted.*





> The law, as laid down in the Talmud and codified by Maimonides, required, however, that the husband should not only insure to each wife adequate maintenance (each wife could claim a separate domicile), but should also secure for each full conjugal rights.


----------



## Everness

Aprinsă said:


> "If Christianity adopted monogamy, it was as a result of the influence of Judaism and not of Rome."
> 
> For the record, if you keep one, it is not plausible to debate the facts of Christianity between a Christian and a non-Christian when it involves faith (i.e. faith in the Bible). That is simply one of the rules of debate. Religion proves itself - that is the meaning of "faith". As for me and probably others here, the Bible is not the Truth. So, by citing the Bible as an ultimate authority, you are excluding me from this debate. Maybe you realize this, but I just thought I should point it out.
> 
> Have you read the original Bible, by the way? I can't really understand how one can have faith in a translation, unless you believe it was only translated with divine intervention.



Hi Aprinsa. Two questions: (1) Are you stating that the Bible can't be trusted at all as a history book? (2) Have you read Plato's original Dialogues? If you haven't, how can you have faith in a translation?


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Hi Aprinsa. Two questions: (1) Are you stating that the Bible can't be trusted at all as a history book? (2) Have you read Plato's original Dialogues? If you haven't, how can you have faith in a translation?


G'day Everness,
Two questions:
Have you read the original text of the Bible?
Have you read the Aramaic or the Latin or the Greek just a translation of a translation of a translation?

.,,


----------



## AGATHA2

Hi everybody:
Could someone explain me what the hell you are discusing now:
the origin of monogamy ?
homosexual couples rights ?
religion in general ?
relevancy of bible-founded arguments for non-religious" people?
quality of all kind of translations ?
the superiority of religious people ?
foundation of a world-wide Christian dictatorship ???


----------



## Aprinsă

Everness said:


> Hi Aprinsa. Two questions: (1) Are you stating that the Bible can't be trusted at all as a history book? (2) Have you read Plato's original Dialogues? If you haven't, how can you have faith in a translation?



1) No, I am not. Why would I say that? I'm saying that the Bible is, to me, just like any other historical text and doesn't stand above the others.

2) When I say "faith", I am referring to religious faith. You cannot compare that to faith in something you consider to be secular.

3) Stop attacking other people's arguments as means of evasion. I am replying to your questions. You did not reply to mine but with questions. That's not debating either. You are turning my question on me, essentially telling me that I must answer your questions before you'll answer mine (if you will do even that).

BTW, thanks for being such a good specimen. I took a class at Oxford this past summer and need to practice recognizing fallacies.



> Could someone explain me what the hell you are discusing now:
> the origin of monogamy ?
> homosexual couples rights ?
> religion in general ?
> relevancy of bible-founded arguments for non-religious" people?
> quality of all kind of translations ?
> the superiority of religious people ?
> foundation of a world-wide Christian dictatorship ???



Save yourself and run away now!


----------



## Everness

. said:


> G'day Everness,
> Two questions:
> Have you read the original text of the Bible?
> 
> No. Have you?
> 
> Have you read the Aramaic or the Latin or the Greek just a translation of a translation of a translation?
> 
> Nope... just a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a.....
> 
> Any further questions?
> 
> .,,


----------



## cuchuflete

AGATHA2 said:


> Hi everybody:
> Could someone explain me what the hell you are discusing now:



I will make an attempt.

The first post states (without proof) that some people take the issue of homosexual marriage as a sign of growing secularism.
Further, some people seem to feel or think that this is not 
'separation of religion and state' secularism, but a different variety that is essentially 'out to get' religion.   Finally, there is an unsubstantiated charge that this re-defined secularism somehow behaves like a religion.

That has led us down many paths, including the usual rants and rational explanations on all sides of the homosexuality and marriage topics, and that, in turn, has led to some useful bits of information being shared, along with what some folks
try to pass off as honest debate.

The original questions, despite repeated pleas to return to them, have been ignored for the most part.  A few individuals have calmly pointed to some behavior that looks anti-religious, while another has managed to track down a single Turkish blogger as a proof source (!).

Somehow the definition of the essence of marriage, and the history of how marriage has been understood and practised over thousands of years, has wrapped itself around the thread.  A self-styled "Christian in recovery" has quoted quite a few Bible passages, and given us the *definitive* interpretation of these, and then switched over to regaling us with (fictional?) tales of what his psychologist friend thinks of
stuff. We have been told, with the certainty of a football match prognosticator (soccer if you prefer....) that polygamists (all fourteen of them?) are ready to leap out of their hiding places and demand rights to get legally spliced.  

Reading this thread has been like going to the supermarket for some sharp cheddar cheese, and wandering up and down the aisles, examining the organic pomegranite juice, the day-old bread bin, and the cat litter bags.  That cheddar must be here somewhere....

I'm going to copy the first post in a moment, in the hopes that we might pay attention to it.


Original thread starter follows......
Everness wrote this....
_ A national organization of family values activists joined Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and more than 1,000 local churchgoers on Sunday to argue to evangelicals that the legalization of same-sex marriage here is threatening religious liberty throughout the country. Here's the full article.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...rriage/?page=1

I was interested in what Brett Clifton, assistant director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University, said,  

"The Family Research Council is an important focus for conservative Christians, and these events are really effective at rallying their base. *They are trying to rally people around the idea that religious people have rights too, and that government and society have grown increasingly secular and anti religious.*"

Could conservatives have a point? We argue that we shouldn't impose *religious values* on a whole society. For instance, conservatives believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gay marriage should be outlawed. Some of us counterargue that we shouldn't impose our religious values on the rest of society, especially those who don't share that belief. But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values* on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society? Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious? Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?_


----------



## übermönch

Everness said:


> But wouldn't legalizing gay marriage impose *secular values* on a whole society infringing upon the rights of conservatives also members of society? Could it be that what some of us see as non-religious is actually anti-religious? Could it be that secularism is becoming the new state religion?


Hell yes! All those dirty _liberal values _continiouslyimposed over the american soceity... Horrible! Secularism allways was an essential of the US-American "state religion" of _liberalism_ and it's horrible sick inhuman commandments has been written down in 1791 on the perverted *Bill of the Rights*. The first commandment already severly infringes the rights of christian fundamentalists:
_*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
*_As if it the perverted declaration of independance was not enough to those totalitarian secular religious fundamentalist  Liberalism nuts!
_*"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
*_Those liberals force everyone to follow the belief that their very god, a triangled pyramid with an eye on top, created all humans equal with the liberty and pursuit of happiness! What about hinduists? They hate them. They spit at their belief. They impose their own religion of Liberalism over them by allowing *A BRAHMIN *to _MARRY _*A DALIT*!! This is a million times as perverted as gay marriage to Christians! Behold! not only USA is clawed by those inquisitors - All countries that acknowledge the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have sold the souls of all believers and slowly degrade to a liberal fundamentalist hell with the Netherlands, Canada and Sweden being the most horrendous examples of _a single religion dictating every aspect of life!_ Even Iran, Pakistan, Bavaria, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia  aren't by far as religiously fundamentalist!

Cucuflete, how do you define religion?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi übermönch,

I've edited your post to correct the attribution of the quoted statement...it was our colleague Everness who said it, not me.

We have had more than enough digressions, so I'll duck your question other than to say that, for me, religion is a human invention, an organization of people, supposedly with a spiritual motive.


----------



## übermönch

cuchuflete said:


> Hi übermönch,
> 
> I've edited your post to correct the attribution of the quoted statement...it was our colleague Everness who said it, not me.


awright. sowry


----------



## AGATHA2

übermönch said:


> All countries that acknowledge the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have sold the souls of all believers and slowly degrade to a liberal fundamentalist hell with the Netherlands, Canada and Sweden being the most horrendous examples of _a single religion dictating every aspect of life!_ Even Iran, Pakistan, Bavaria, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia aren't by far as religiously fundamentalist!


 
Really nice text  But of course you could´nt resist putting Bavaria between Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia


----------



## ElaineG

The New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled that New Jersey's exclusion of same-sex couples from the rights and protections of civil marriage is irrational and violates due process under the state constitution, but found no fundamental right to marriage for same-sex couples. The court required civil unions but left to the legislature whether to grant full marriage rights. 

The decision is 90 pages long and I have only skimmed it, but it addresses many of the issues (societal change v. tradition, for example) that have come up in this thread.

the decision:
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf


----------



## cuchuflete

Pages 1-3 summarize the issues and findings clearly.  Note that among many other organizations filing friend of the court briefs, was our oft-mentioned FRC.

Dennis M. Caufield submitted a brief on
behalf of amicus curiae Family Research
Council.

The Court found that homosexual couples were entitled to the same rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples, and left it to the legislature to determine whether this should be accomplished through a revision to the N.J. law governing marriage, or through other means, such as a Civil Union.   It is clear from the summary that this court is not concerned about the naming conventions--it left that entirely in the hands of the legislature-- but is very much in favor of equal rights.  

It made numerous references to societal change, and the maturing of society.


----------



## LouisaB

An update from the UK...

It was reported in our Press yesterday that the Government is now tabling an amendment to its Education Bill, allowing local councils to insist new 'faith schools' reserve 25% of their places for childen 'outside the faith'. The reasoning behind this is that faith school's consistently out-perform State-schools, because their discipline is tighter, their motivation is higher, and parents give more active involvement (I wonder why?). The Government wants these advantages extended to all children. The fact that this policy will mean the schools are no longer effectively 'faith schools' at all, and that the standards may well therefore drop to resemble other schools, seems to have escaped their notice...

The Church of England has actually volunteered this change (in the UK, a 'state religion' is a religion which does what the State tells it - it's been that way since Henry VIII). The others - principally Catholics, Jews and Muslims - are understandably outraged, especially as there has apparently been no consultation at all.

Even more alarming, our Schools Inspectorate has now been instructed to grade schools on their contribution to 'community cohesion', and faith schools are to be forced to increase their teaching of other religions.

Effectively, this means in the UK it will shortly become illegal for a Catholic to secure a Catholic education for their child, even if they pay for it.

To me, this sounds rather like secularism trampling fairly heavily on the individual's rights to religion. But perhaps others on this board would disagree?

LouisaB


----------



## Outsider

LouisaB said:


> An update from the UK...
> 
> It was reported in our Press yesterday that the Government is now tabling an amendment to its Education Bill, allowing local councils to insist new 'faith schools' reserve 25% of their places for childen 'outside the faith'. The reasoning behind this is that faith school's consistently out-perform State-schools, because their discipline is tighter, their motivation is higher, and parents give more active involvement (I wonder why?). The Government wants these advantages extended to all children. The fact that this policy will mean the schools are no longer effectively 'faith schools' at all, and that the standards may well therefore drop to resemble other schools, seems to have escaped their notice...
> 
> The Church of England has actually volunteered this change (in the UK, a 'state religion' is a religion which does what the State tells it - it's been that way since Henry VIII). The others - principally Catholics, Jews and Muslims - are understandably outraged, especially as there has apparently been no consultation at all.
> 
> [...]
> 
> To me, this sounds rather like secularism trampling fairly heavily on the individual's rights to religion. But perhaps others on this board would disagree?


Yes, I disagree. I don't think the root of that is secularism. It sounds like a very clumsy attempt by the British government to keep an eye on Islamic fundamentalism (by forcing Islamic schools to accept non-Muslim students), which has backfired.



LouisaB said:


> Effectively, this means in the UK it will shortly become illegal for a Catholic to secure a Catholic education for their child, even if they pay for it.


I don't see how that's the case.


----------



## ElaineG

Here in New York, there's a long tradition of non-Catholics attending Catholic schools, precisely because the Catholic school system offered a better disciplined alternative to the public schools at a much more affordable price than the elite private schools.  For many lower middle-class families, it is the best way to ensure a decent education for their children.

The "downside" has always been (and I know many people who grew up this way) is that these kids have had to sit through all the "Catholic" parts of Catholic school, including the mandatory religion classes, prayer, etc.  (Actually the non-Catholics don't seem to find all this any more annoying than kids who are Catholic by birth, but that's another story...)

MY mother is the principal of a Jewish private school here in the city, and some non-Jews choose to attend the nursery school and kindergarten (not much interest in the upper grades).  They are taught the Hebrew alphabet and the holiday calendar along with the rest of the kids.

Anyway, the point is, if the kids who are attending the faith schools in the UK are required to conform to the school, and not the other way around, religion is not really harmed.


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> The New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled that New Jersey's exclusion of same-sex couples from the rights and protections of civil marriage is irrational and violates due process under the state constitution, but found no fundamental right to marriage for same-sex couples. *The court required civil unions but left to the legislature whether to grant full marriage rights. *
> 
> The decision is 90 pages long and I have only skimmed it, but it addresses many of the issues (societal change v. tradition, for example) that have come up in this thread.
> 
> the decision:
> http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf



You got it wrong.



> New Jersey's highest court ruled yesterday that *same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples* under state marriage statutes.*The court left the task of naming the newly recognized right -- whether marriage, civil union, or something else -- up to the New Jersey Legislature.*



http://www.boston.com/news/specials...ers_equal_rights_for_same_sex_couples/?page=1

As I stated before, it all boils down to *what's in a name.* 

(1) New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry T. Albin wrote in the majority opinion. "Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution." 

(2) But should we call same-sex marriage, marriage? 

Here's what the majority opinion said, "We cannot escape the reality that the shared societal meaning of marriage -- passed down through the common law into our statutory law -- has always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter that meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a societal institution of ancient origin."

(3) Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz strongly dissented. She wrote for the minority that to rule that gay couples deserve all the rights of married heterosexuals -- except the right to call their union a marriage -- is unfair and an affront to the Constitution. "What we 'name' things matters, language matters. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities."

(4) Then you have scholars who don't understand what's the big fuzz about a name. 

Andrew Koppelman , a Northwestern law professor and author of "Same Sex, Different States," a book on gay rights said, "The court seems to think that eventually the proper labels will take hold. The Legislature can call it cheeseburger if they want."

(5) But you also have scholars who disagree with those who argue that there's no symbolic value in names.  

Harvard law professor Lawrence H. Tribe, who supports gay marriage rights, said the choice of a name is significant. "There are intangible benefits that go with the state's symbolic use of the word marriage. What isn't clear is if those benefits could be limited to heterosexual couples." Tribe perfectly summarized it with this phrase: "People live and die for symbols."

For the record --and I'm just restating my position-- I agree with the rationale behind the Court's majority opinion. "Same rights, different names." Down the road, we can sit down and talk again. Otherwise, we'll all follow California's lead.


----------



## AGATHA2

Everness said:


> "Same rights, different names."


 
Just a question: wasn´t Apartheid also based on a similar hypocrisy ?


----------



## cuchuflete

The UK is apparently quite different from the US regarding state meddling, intervention, mucking around where it doesn't belong, call-it-what-you-will, in private education.    

This is, from my US point of view, outrageous and stupid. If the state runs public education badly, why not learn from those who do a better job?   If teaching about other religions is a good idea—and I believe it is—then just make it part of the required curriculum for all schools.  

The outrage is fully justified.  

I don't know if this is an example of secularism, by any definition, so much as a demonstration of an appalling lack of common sense.  It does seem to be an attempt to influence religion, rather than attacking the concept and practice of it.
It also appears to be an attack on effective education.




LouisaB said:


> An update from the UK...
> 
> It was reported in our Press yesterday that the Government is now tabling an amendment to its Education Bill, allowing local councils to insist new 'faith schools' reserve 25% of their places for childen 'outside the faith'. The reasoning behind this is that faith school's consistently out-perform State-schools, because their discipline is tighter, their motivation is higher, and parents give more active involvement (I wonder why?). The Government wants these advantages extended to all children. The fact that this policy will mean the schools are no longer effectively 'faith schools' at all, and that the standards may well therefore drop to resemble other schools, seems to have escaped their notice...
> 
> The Church of England has actually volunteered this change (in the UK, a 'state religion' is a religion which does what the State tells it - it's been that way since Henry VIII). The others - principally Catholics, Jews and Muslims - are understandably outraged, especially as there has apparently been no consultation at all.
> 
> Even more alarming, our Schools Inspectorate has now been instructed to grade schools on their contribution to 'community cohesion', and faith schools are to be forced to increase their teaching of other religions.
> 
> Effectively, this means in the UK it will shortly become illegal for a Catholic to secure a Catholic education for their child, even if they pay for it.
> 
> To me, this sounds rather like secularism trampling fairly heavily on the individual's rights to religion. But perhaps others on this board would disagree?
> 
> LouisaB


----------



## Everness

AGATHA2 said:


> Just a question: wasn´t Apartheid also based on a similar hypocrisy ?



Actually not. Apartheid's slogan was, "Different names (white, black), different rights (unlike white folks, black people have no or few rights.) On the other hand, you're comparing apples with oranges. Marriage is a legitimate social institution whose value isn't being questioned. Otherwise, why would gay and lesbians want to join the club of the happily married? (That doesn't mean that some people think marriage is an antiquated institution that will gradually phase out.) On the other hand, racism, sexism, ageism, etc. were, are, and will be discriminatory social institutions per se. There's nothing redeembable in them.


----------



## LouisaB

Outsider said:


> Yes, I disagree. I don't think the root of that is secularism. It sounds like a very clumsy attempt by the British government to keep an eye on Islamic fundamentalism (by forcing Islamic schools to accept non-Muslim students), which has backfired.
> 
> I don't see how that's the case.


 
I'm not sure that its being aimed at Muslims makes it any more acceptable to me.



ElaineG said:


> Here in New York, there's a long tradition of non-Catholics attending Catholic schools, precisely because the Catholic school system offered a better disciplined alternative to the public schools at a much more affordable price than the elite private schools. For many lower middle-class families, it is the best way to ensure a decent education for their children.
> 
> The "downside" has always been (and I know many people who grew up this way) is that these kids have had to sit through all the "Catholic" parts of Catholic school, including the mandatory religion classes, prayer, etc. (Actually the non-Catholics don't seem to find all this any more annoying than kids who are Catholic by birth, but that's another story...)
> 
> MY mother is the principal of a Jewish private school here in the city, and some non-Jews choose to attend the nursery school and kindergarten (not much interest in the upper grades). They are taught the Hebrew alphabet and the holiday calendar along with the rest of the kids.
> 
> Anyway, the point is, if the kids who are attending the faith schools in the UK are required to conform to the school, and not the other way around, religion is not really harmed.


 
This, I think, is both interesting and encouraging, and hopefully things will work out this well in the UK too. The key question for me would be: was it imposed in the US as well, or was it a matter of free choice for the schools concerned?

Also, I suppose the most important response would be that of the faith students rather than the 'outside' pupils. I didn't go to a faith school myself, and my experience of them is largely anecdotal, so I don't want to argue from a position of ignorance. But I would wonder (and it can only be speculation) how real 'believers' might feel about taking part in an act of their religion, which may even be sacred to them, in the presence of (potentially sceptical) non-believers?

We may also have a problem in the UK in that here a parent has the right to withdraw their child from any religious aspect of school life with which they disagree. This, I think, was a rule originally designed to _protect_ religion, eg granting Jewish children the right to be exempted from what used to be a compulsory Christian service at the start of the school day. However, it could have an unfortunate effect now. If 25% of the pupils at a school are permitted to withdraw from religious aspects of a faith school (and I don't know if that will happen or not, it hasn't yet been raised) then that faith will need to be increasingly watered down in order to make the school viable. This is speculation, and I wouldn't use it to argue the point of the thread - as I say, the reasoning behind this was not anti-religious, even if the effect of it may ultimately be very damaging indeed.



cuchuflete said:


> The UK is apparently quite different from the US regarding state meddling, intervention, mucking around where it doesn't belong, call-it-what-you-will, in private education.
> 
> This is, from my US point of view, outrageous and stupid. If the state runs public education badly, why not learn from those who do a better job? If teaching about other religions is a good idea—and I believe it is—then just make it part of the required curriculum for all schools.
> 
> The outrage is fully justified.
> 
> I don't know if this is an example of secularism, by any definition, so much as a demonstration of an appalling lack of common sense. It does seem to be an attempt to influence religion, rather than attacking the concept and practice of it.
> It also appears to be an attack on effective education.


 
I totally agree with you, cuchuflete, and thank you for your very courteous and broad-minded response. I would also concur with your view that it is 'an attempt to influence' rather than an attack on concept and practice. I don't honestly believe the British Government is in any way trying to suppress religion, merely impose some secular values on it. I would actively disagree with the first thread question on this, as I do not see the movement as 'anti-religious' in any way.

In terms of teaching other religions, this is already compulsory in other schools, and it is only now the rule is being extended to faith schools too. Personally, I agree that it is good to learn about other religions, but the difficulty it presents for some faiths is that by definition their creed is exclusive. Thus, for a Catholic - 'I am the Way and The Life, there is no Way to the Father, but through Me' (New Testament); for a Jew - 'Thou shalt have no other Gods but Me' (Old Testamant); and for a Muslim 'There is no God but Allah, and Mohommed is His Prophet' (Koran - I think). An attempt to force faith schools to teach their pupils that there _are_ other gods of equal legitimacy could be seen as an attack on the very nature of religion. Such an education would not truthfully be a Catholic one (or a Jewish one, or a Muslim one).

But this is a thorny one. Personally I am grateful for the multi-cultural education I received, and don't consider it's damaged my Christian beliefs in any way. But I can see that for many people it could be experienced as very destructive. I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who's had either negative or positive experiences in that respect.

LouisaB


----------



## ElaineG

> You got it wrong.


 
I absolutely did not -- the court required civil granting of all rights and appurtenances belonging to marriage, i.e., "civil unions", which is what I said. What the Court said was:



> The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in _one of two ways_. It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallell statutory structure... If the State proceeds with a parallel scheme_, _it cannot make entry into a same-sex _civil union_ any more difficult that it is for heterosexual couples.


 (Slip. op., p. 65, _emphasis added_).


_See also_, slip op., p. 59 (emphasis added):


> The Legislature is free to break from the historical traditions that have limited the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples or to frame a _civil union_ style structure, as Vermont and Connecticut have done. (p. 59)


 
Obviously, this plainly means that civil union status is the _minimum_ that the legislature can establish. _See also_, p. 61, again clearly laying out that the alternatives are civil union or marriage ("Although we do not know whether the Legislature will choose the option of a _civil union_ statute, the dissenters presume in advance that the our legislators cannot give any reason to justify retaining the definition of marriage solely for opposite sex couples"). (I think I trust my own reading of the opinion more than that of "boston.com" -- one thing _every _lawyer, like any other expert in an a field knows, is that any report of legal proceedings in the press inevitably botches the process!) 

Contrary to Everness's "different names, same thing" solution, the majority opinion _does not_ express an opinion on whether the name "marriage" should be applied to gay couples. What it does state is that that is _not a judicial decision_, and that the name "_marriage_" is not constitutionally mandated -- once _all the rights_ of "marriage" have been conferred, and that use of the term "marriage" is _to be left to the legislature_. 

The mistake Everness makes is common one that polemicists make when interpreting legal opinions, but it is to be avoided -- in finding that a task is not appropriate for the judiciary, a court does not express an opinion one way or the other as to its _actual merit._

As the majority opinion states:



> New language is developing to describe the new social and familial relationships, and in time will find its place in our common vocabulary. Through a better understanding of those new relationships and acceptance _forged in the democratic process_, _rather than through judicial fiat_, the proper labels will take hold. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples _will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship._


 
The majority opinion goes on to make a point Cuchu and I have been making throughout this thread:



> The institution of marriage reflects society's changing social mores and values. In the last two centuries, that institution has undergone a great transformation, much of it through legislative action. The Legislature broke the grip of the dead hand of the past and repealed the common law decisions that denied a married woman a legal identity separate from that of her husband.... _The Legislature has played a major role, along with the courts, in ushering marriage into the modern era._


 
P.S. Judicial opinions in the U.S. are not subject to copyright, and I ask the CultureMods forbearance for these long quotes.


----------



## GenJen54

I was raised in a largely secular household (I went to the occasional church service with my grandparents), but my parents sought a private education for me because our local public schools at that time were failing miserably. 

As such, I attended perochial schools until I went to college, which was a public university. It is important to note, however, that there are no private schools in my city that are _not_ affiliated with a church or religion. 

From first through ninth grades I attended two schools which were founded on Episcopalian principles. This played itself out via students' mandatory attendance at Chapel services. At the first school, which I attended from pre-school through fourth grades, chapel attendance was once weekly, on Fridays. 

At the other school, we attended chapel each morning for about twenty minutes. In neither school was religion or church teachings a part of the actual education curriculum.

In tenth grade, I switched to a Catholic high school. This school had a much broader demographic mix than did the two other schools, and I knew students who came from both religious (Catholic and non-Catholic) and secular families. 

Believers and non-believers alike attended twice monthly Mass "assemblies," although non-believers were asked not to participate in communion. In addition, theology courses were mandatory through the Junior (third-year) level. After that, they were taken on an elective basis. 

While there, I studied World Religion and Catholicism, the latter of which (if memory serves) focused more on Catholic philosophers (Descartes among them), and not so much on actual Papal teachings or specific Church doctrine.

The school was very inclusive and there was no sense on the part of any of the teachers that I had to conform to any one way of thinking. 

Of course, the religosity aired itself in other ways. In "marriage and modern living" class, for example, we were only taught one form of "birth control," which is the Catholic-approved "rhythm" method. Other forms of birth control were simply not ever discussed. Of course, abstinence until was also taught.

Another way in which this played itself out was in a school production of the popular musical / movie "Grease." In the original production, one of the characters, a high schooler, believes herself to be pregnant. Of course, this was a no-no, so we had to cut this section, as well as any profanity out of the production.

Aside from that, the school was very well integrated. I never felt pressured to join the Catholic faith, although at one time a priest told me I would be doomed to hell if not baptised Catholic (he was a substitute teacher).

I don't think it harmed anyone. 

Just because a Catholic nun is teaching someone about the "fact" and "faith" of other religions does not mean she has to preach its doctrine, nor support it. 

I don't know that anyone felt "forced" into anything.

The trend seems to be changing a bit, however, with several "faith-based" schools cropping up in many different areas.  Most of these are protestant fundamental in their teachings, and Biblical teachings are very much a part of the curriculum.  In some schools, the regular text books even make reference to Christ and Christianity.  These types of schools are much more faith and church based than the type of school I attended.


----------



## cuchuflete

LouisaB said:
			
		

> An attempt to force faith schools to teach their pupils that there _are_ other gods of equal legitimacy could be seen as an attack on the very nature of religion. Such an education would not truthfully be a Catholic one (or a Jewish one, or a Muslim one).


 emphasis added

We differ here.  I see no risk in teaching children that there are people who hold different beliefs, and hold them with equal sincerity.  For those other people, the legitimacy of their own perception of God is not even a question, any more than it is for those in a religious school.  It's not a matter of whose God is as legitimate or most legitimate, so much as one of accepting that there are many belief systems, and that their respective believers are legally and socially 'legitimate', while each theology may declare itself to be the one and only 'correct' one.  School children are not stupid.  On leaving school, if not well before that, they will be exposed to the reality that no one religion, even nominally, has the adherence of more than about a third of the population of the planet.  Teaching _about_ the existence and views of other religions is far from advocating those other beliefs.  

I wonder if state or private schools, in their classes about religions, teach the students that religious attendence has plummeted in most European countries, and if those classes try to understand the causes and effects of this major social change.


----------



## JamesM

> I wonder if state or private schools, in their classes about religions, teach the students that religious attendence has plummeted in most European countries, and if those classes try to understand the causes and effects of this major social change.


 
Just a note... basically, we are not allowed to have classes about any religion in state schools in the U.S. until the University level. The topic is excluded entirely from presentation in public schools. (I suppose there might be exceptions, but they are extremely rare, as far as I know.)



> I see no risk in teaching children that there are people who hold different beliefs, and hold them with equal sincerity. For those other people, the legitimacy of their own perception of God is not even a question, any more than it is for those in a religious school.


 
I agree... the more information we have about other religions, the better chance there is of understanding someone's position, even if we don't agree with it. The complete gag restriction on this topic in U.S. Public Schools is distinctly _un_educational. A Comparative Religions class would be useful information for anyone entering public life, in my opinion.


----------



## ElaineG

> Just a note... basically, we are not allowed to have classes about any religion in state schools in the U.S. until the University level.


 
Maybe in California, but that's not a requirement of the U.S. Constitution, and we studied different religious topics _in a cultural _context in the public schools I attended.  My high school offered an elective course on Comparative Religion, which of course is not prohibited by the Constitution.

This is still true today, as the students in the Brooklyn public elementary school where several of my friends teach, are encouraged to explain the different holidays in the context of their own religions to the other students.  (This came up just this week as several students from African immigrant families at my friends' school led a school assembly on the end of Ramadan -- I was just looking at the (adorable) pictures last night).

I remember bringing in dreidls and Chanukkah gelt for my Christian classmates and telling the Chanukkah story, which was always given equal time in my school with the Christmas story and the Kwanzaa story.  I guess we didn't have any Buddhists or Muslims.

There is nothing constitutional whatsoever that prevents students from _learning about_ religion as opposed to _being forced to practice it_.

Now, as the child of two educators, I can tell you that teachers often feel there is no bigger obstacle to learning than complaining parents.  So, I can easily imagine some Christian parent becoming hysterical when told that their child will study Muslim customs and holidays, and _vice-versa.  _

A couple of ignorant parents shouting hysterical things about the school trying to brainwash their child, and before you know it, all mention of religion in the classroom is _verboten_.


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> The New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled that New Jersey's exclusion of same-sex couples from the rights and protections of civil marriage is irrational and violates due process under the state constitution, but found no fundamental right to marriage for same-sex couples. The court required civil unions but left to the legislature whether to grant full marriage rights.
> 
> The decision is 90 pages long and I have only skimmed it, but it addresses many of the issues (societal change v. tradition, for example) that have come up in this thread.
> 
> the decision:
> http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf



I insist. You got it wrong. You said, 

*The court required civil unions but left to the legislature whether to grant full marriage rights. *

The court didn't leave to the legislature whether to grant full marriage rights. This is what the Court said, 



> “We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples.”



Different or same name, but same rights. 

Then you say,



ElaineG said:


> (I think I trust my own reading of the opinion more than that of "boston.com" -- one thing _every _lawyer, like any other expert in an a field knows, is that any report of legal proceedings in the press inevitably botches the process!)



Don't take it personally, but I'd rather trust boston.com's opinion than yours.  I read different stories and they all agree with boston.com's rendering and not with yours.

Here's just one example (I hope you hold no grudges against TIME, but if you do I can find some other publication within or without the states)

_The Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of gay marriage, sort of. By a vote of 4 to 3, the court says the state must afford gay couples all the “rights and benefits” that straight couples have under the law. *But the majority punted on the question of what to call gay marriages. If it doesn’t want to call them marriages, the legislature is free to come up with a term of its choosing for committed gay relationships.*_http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1550838-1,00.html

However, I might need to revisit the answer I just gave to AGATHA2 in the light of what the author of this article says, 

"The Plessy court couldn’t have said it better: separate railway cars for blacks are fine, as long as they are just as nice as the ones for whites. Don’t bother about that curtain between the black and white cars. “Marriages,” “civil unions,” “two guys shacking up with a lot of All-Clad cookware”—does the term really matter?"


----------



## ElaineG

I insist. You got it wrong. You said, 

[/QUOTE]

Well, now you've changed your quibble.  Yes, I should have said, the Court granted full rights but left it to the legislature whether to call that institution marriage.  If you read my post above, you'll see that's exactly what I said.  My first post misplaced the word rights.



> _The Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of gay marriage, sort of. By a vote of 4 to 3, the court says the state must afford gay couples all the “rights and benefits” that straight couples have under the law. *But the majority punted on the question of what to call gay marriages. If it doesn’t want to call them marriages, the legislature is free to come up with a term of its choosing for committed gay relationships.*_http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0838-1,00.html


 
Um, that's more or less exactly what my post #208 says.  The opinion contemplates marriage, or another structure which it calls civil unions.  That's exactly what I've said.  If you have a point of disagreement with me, I don't see it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> Here's just one example (I hope you hold no grudges against TIME, but if you do I can find some other publication within or without the states)
> 
> _The Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of gay marriage, sort of. By a vote of 4 to 3, the court says the state must afford gay couples all the “rights and benefits” that straight couples have under the law. *But the majority punted on the question of what to call gay marriages. If it doesn’t want to call them marriages, the legislature is free to come up with a term of its choosing for committed gay relationships.*_http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1550838-1,00.html



Time got it wrong, so if you are happy with their interpretation, you got it wrong as well.

Let's look at piece by little piece:

"The Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of gay marriage, sort of. "   No, the Court did not rule in favor of gay marriage, sort of or at all.  They ruled that the New Jersey Constitution requires equal rights for all citizens, and that gay couples are currently denied those rights.  They further ruled that the New Jersey State legislature has 180 days as of the ruling date to remedy this.  

"By a vote of 4 to 3, the court says the state must afford gay couples all the “rights and benefits” that straight couples have under the law."   That statement is wrong, inaccurate, deceptive and misleading.  It gives the impression that three Justices of that court were not in favor of the ruling in its entirety, while, in fact, the three dissenters concurred with the ruling in favor of equal rights under the law, and *further* believe that gay marriage is the way to remedy the current inequality.   

"But the majority punted on the question of what to call gay marriages. "  That is a crock of manure.  The Court did not "punt".  They found, logically, that the naming convention applied to the remedy to unequal rights was properly in the hands of the legislature, and was not a judicial matter.  

"If it doesn’t want to call them marriages, the legislature is free to come up with a term of its choosing for committed gay relationships."   Wrong again.  The legislature is free to come up with a term of its choosing, which may include 'marriage' or not, for committed gay people who apply for the right to enter into a legally recognized union which includes all rights provided by the State of New Jersey to heterosexual married couples.


Time didn't manage to (1)Check its facts; (2)read with comprehension; (3) accurately portray the position of the Court, either in its entirety or by concurring and dissenting votes; (4)inform the public of the substance and meaning of the case or the ruling.   If that's the kind of 'news' source you choose to believe, I will happily sell you some waterfront land, visible at low tide.  Let me spell it out for you:  Many committed couples, both heterosexual and gay, do not choose to marry, enter into civil unions, or otherwise seek State sanction of their relationship.  The Court ruling does not apply to such people. Time got it wrong on this point, just as it got everything else sort of, almost in the right general direction, except when it was outright wrong.


----------



## JamesM

ElaineG said:


> Maybe in California, but that's not a requirement of the U.S. Constitution, and we studied different religious topics _in a cultural _context in the public schools I attended. My high school offered an elective course on Comparative Religion, which of course is not prohibited by the Constitution.
> .


 
Absolutely, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it, but this is where we come back to this topic of secularism. 

I'm glad your school offered Comparative Religion in high school. That is an exception, unless I'm completely mistaken. The fear of appearing to intermingle religion with state education keeps most school boards from tackling the issue.

As for complaints, let's not just characterize the Christian parents or Muslim parents as complainers. We have parents complaining about any mention of religion at all, or any hint of any mention of religion. You may offer up these complaints as the reason that these classes are not taught, but there are just as many complaints about discussions of abortion, condoms, etc., and those classes continue. Obviously, complaints _alone_ don't determine what is verboten and what isn't. 

There is a definite fear of engaging the issue, and that fear leads to complete silence on the issue. We have somewhere around 90% of our population engaged in an issue that almost none of our schools will even mention. That appears very odd to me. That is not neutrality. 

Now, where that comes from is a much muddier issue. Nevertheless, the de facto standard is that religion (of any kind) is treated as if it didn't exist in the vast majority of public schools in the U.S., and many people applaud this condition.  Information about religions is no more an attempt to promote a religion than teaching about classical mythology is an attempt to have students believe in the classical Greek pantheon.


----------



## Victoria32

AGATHA2 said:


> Just a question: wasn´t Apartheid also based on a similar hypocrisy ?


Not quite... There was a lot more to it!


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> Nevertheless, the de facto standard is that religion (of any kind) is treated as if it didn't exist in the vast majority of public schools in the U.S., and many people applaud this condition.  Information about religions is no more an attempt to promote a religion than teaching about classical mythology is an attempt to have students believe in the classical Greek pantheon.


Dear James,
you raised an interesting and stimulating point. In Germany "comparative religion" can be handled as normal subject and it is not an issue of controversy.

However, I am afraid that conservative Christians would oppose to such neutral teaching. Imagine that no one would be allowed to say _"There is a gracious God / he created the world in seven days / Jesus died for our sins"_, but you learn _"There are some who actually believe God created the world in seven days, but most people interpret that not literally. Some people believe in miracles, but so far none was proven. The bible has been written by priests in many sections over thousands of years, as you can easily see in the hebrew text and e.g. by the two contradicting fables of creation in Genesis."_

Such teaching values would probably not be accepted in the US. But those are necessary if you want to keep it neutrally. Analyse linguistics, use foreign languages like greek or hebrew, compare with science, keep it neutral. Teach buddhistic nirvana with the same rigor and truth as Christian hell fire. 

Do you honestly think this would be viable in US?

Kajjo


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Time got it wrong, so if you are happy with their interpretation, you got it wrong as well.
> 
> Let's look at piece by little piece:
> 
> "The Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of gay marriage, *sort of.* "



Oh please! What part of "sort of" you don't understand? The high court might not have granted gay couples the right to marry, but it did assert that they were entitled to the same rights as their married heterosexual counterparts. Here's a gay guy trying to "translate" some dry legal jargon into a more personal and interesting story so lay people can "get it" and you get all technical!  Gimme a break!


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities."


Why do you feel such a pressing need to have people set apart by artifacts like labels?
In a world full of people being riven by every kind of terror why do we need to nurture an additional pointless point of separation?
I live in a house surrounded by other houses and the sexual proclivities of the occupants of those myriad houses have utterly no effect on me. My life goes on unchanged and unhindered by any number of straight or gay or bi or tri or asexual relationships. The poor sad lonely isolationists bother me slightly but I don't encounter them in the flesh very often at all and when I do they grant me a wide berth.
Labels are used as weapons by the meanspirited.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> Dear James,
> you raised an interesting and stimulating point. In Germany "comparative religion" can be handled as normal subject and it is not an issue of controversy.
> 
> However, I am afraid that conservative Christians would oppose to such neutral teaching. Imagine that no one would be allowed to say _"There is a gracious God / he created the world in seven days / Jesus died for our sins"_, but you learn _"There are some who actually believe God created the world in seven days, but most people interpret that not literally. Some people believe in miracles, but so far none was proven. The bible has been written by priests in many sections over thousands of years, as you can easily see in the hebrew text and e.g. by the two contradicting fables of creation in Genesis."_
> 
> Such teaching values would probably not be accepted in the US. But those are necessary if you want to keep it neutrally. Analyse linguistics, use foreign languages like greek or hebrew, compare with science, keep it neutral. Teach buddhistic nirvana with the same rigor and truth as Christian hell fire.
> 
> Do you honestly think this would be viable in US?
> 
> Kajjo


 
Yes, I do think it would be viable in the U.S.  It is already viable at the university level. 

I think people who have not lived here have a very skewed idea of the openness of the average U.S. Christian to other ideas, probably because the ultra-conservative element is getting a great deal of press right now.  Everything in public schools is taught from a relatively neutral standpoint (or as close to neutral as it gets.)  I don't see why religion could not be taught in the same way and be accepted. I think it would be better than no information about any religion.


----------



## cuchuflete

To understand the relationship of the US federal (national) government and religious organizations, in terms of political advocacy, this is simple and clear:  http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

A church may support a candidate, oppose a candidate, and engage in any political activity it pleases, but in many cases, this will result in the loss of tax subsidies.  If a church chooses to be treated as a non-profit, charitable organization for tax purposes, it may not endorse or oppose a candidate for political office.  It may take a position on issues.



> A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti. In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The court rejected the plaintiff church's allegations that it was being selectively prosecuted because of its conservative views and that its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed.  The court wrote: "The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose."



The law involved has been in existence for over half a century.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> To understand the relationship of the US federal (national) government and religious organizations, in terms of political advocacy, this is simple and clear: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
> 
> A church may support a candidate, oppose a candidate, and engage in any political activity it pleases, but in many cases, this will result in the loss of tax *subsidies*.


 
Just to be totally clear, no church in the U.S. receives tax subsidies.  The churches receive certain tax _exemptions_, but no money is paid to churches by the U.S. Government, as opposed to some other countries where Christianity is the state religion and does, in fact, receive subsidies.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> Just to be totally clear, no church in the U.S. receives tax subsidies.  The churches receive certain tax _exemptions_, but no money is paid to churches by the U.S. Government, as opposed to some other countries where Christianity is the state religion and does, in fact, receive subsidies.



You are correct, James.  I used the word "subsidies" for two reasons...

1) Qualified, tax-exempt religious organizations do not pay taxes for public services received, such as sewers, roads, fire and police protection.  This amounts to a 100% subsidy of the costs charged to other properties for such services.

2) Donations to qualifed churches are tax-deductible for the person making the gift, thereby reducing the taxes paid by individuals to the state and federal governments. This amounts to a transfer of funds from government to private institutions.  The same is true for charities.  

_I see no difficulty or issue with either of these_, but if the church then engages in direct political activity, it is doing so with savings in tax monies, among other funds.  That would amount to a public subsidy for political advocacy.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> You are correct, James. I used the word "subsidies" for two reasons...
> 
> 1) Qualified, tax-exempt religious organizations do not pay taxes for public services received, such as sewers, roads, fire and police protection. This amounts to a 100% subsidy of the costs charged to other properties for such services.


 
Well, then, we can say that we subsidize big business for R&D costs, we subsidize low-income families, we subsidize farmers for purchases of farm equipment, we subsidies a family's excessive medical expenses, etc. If we are going to use "subsidies" in this sense, then ALL tax exemptions become subsidies. Churches pay impact and development costs for any new development that affects roads, sewers, etc. They als pay utilities and taxes on utilities. It's true that they do not pay property tax, but many institutions do not. 



> 2) Donations to qualifed churches are tax-deductible for the person making the gift, thereby reducing the taxes paid by individuals to the state and federal governments. This amounts to a transfer of funds from government to private institutions. The same is true for charities.


 
If the government never collected it, it cannot be a transfer. This is fuzzy logic, in my opinion. This is like saying if a store has a sale, it is "transferring the funds" that you would have paid back to an individual. It is a failure to realize additional revenue, but it is not a transfer of funds.

_



			I see no difficulty or issue with either of these
		
Click to expand...

_


> , but if the church then engages in direct political activity, it is doing so with savings in tax monies, among other funds. That would amount to a public subsidy for political advocacy.


 
Well, we disagree on the use of the word "subsidy", but we agree that it is not the church's position to endorse any particular candidate. I have no argument with that.

Subsidy is a payment out - we subsidize milk production in the U.S. Tax exemptions are a lack of collecting in. If my brother-in-law stays at my house rent-free, he is exempt from rent. If I have to write a check for him to stay in his own place, I'm subsidizing his rent. They are very different things.


----------

