SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[Kris]

With regard to respecting traditions, I love steak but I don't eat it in front the hindu.  Something about respecting sacred cows.  The comments about magic are kind of the same thing in my mind.

The difference between actions and beliefs is an important one, and I've been trying to make the distinction clear here.

Your Hindu friend doesn't have to approve of eating cows, but he doesn't get to legally prohibit you from enjoying steak.  You don't have to approve of gay marriage, but you can't legally prohibit other people from getting gay married.  I don't have to believe in a Christian god, but I won't support any law that keeps anyone from worshipping (or not) as they see fit.  One person's belief should not be another person's law.

The supreme court ruling doesn't force anyone to approve or sanction or condone gay marriage, privately.  It prohibits anyone from forcing those private beliefs onto other people, in the spirit of the US civil rights movement protecting equality for all.  If you value your right to worship freely and eat that steak, I think you kind of have to support the court's decision in this case. 

Gay people are people, and they should probably have the same rights as other people.  You are free to call them sinners as long as you don't infringe their rights.

Completely agree.  Personal beliefs on gay marriage should be respected, but that's not a license to discriminate.  I also don't feel the need to yell sinner at others (or mock them) for a behavior that doesn't impact me.  Judge not. lest ye be judged.

I would make the exception that the clergy and churches should have the right to deny wedding ceremonies to anyone they so choose.  If same sex couples want to form the church of same sex, they are free to deny hetero couples the right to marry in their church.

County clerks and justice of the peace, obey the law.  State sponsored marriage is not a religious issue.  Religious marriage is another matter.

Exactly. And of course, clergy has always been able to refuse to marry people whose beliefs or practices they don't agree with.

[bludreamin]

Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here.  They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it.

But the U.S. government DID create a definition for marriage for use in tax laws, visitation rights, adoption laws, etc. The supreme court has simply decided that the definition they created must include homosexuals due to the 14th amendment. Not sure what you mean here.

^^^this this this x 1000000^^^

Government definition is used for determining those legal/financial benefits. Plus isn't it government that issues marriage licenses? Having never been married that's my understanding. They don't ask for your sexual orientation when you apply for your drivers license so why for marriage?

[MDM]

Completely agree.  Personal beliefs on gay marriage should be respected, but that's not a license to discriminate.  I also don't feel the need to yell sinner at others (or mock them) for a behavior that doesn't impact me.  Judge not. lest ye be judged.

I would make the exception that the clergy and churches should have the right to deny wedding ceremonies to anyone they so choose.  If same sex couples want to form the church of same sex, they are free to deny hetero couples the right to marry in their church.

County clerks and justice of the peace, obey the law.  State sponsored marriage is not a religious issue.  Religious marriage is another matter.

I completely agree with you.  :-O  :-)  In fact, clergy and other churches already refuse to marry couples already, in large numbers.  For example, if you are Catholic and want to marry a Jewish person, good luck with that!

Exactly. And of course, clergy has always been able to refuse to marry people whose beliefs or practices they don't agree with.

Hmm...tolerance and respect for others' positions?  Maybe the three of you can start a trend....

[Financial.Velociraptor]

ATTN MODS:  One vote for locking this thread.  No longer on topic and getting snippy.

[sol]

ATTN MODS:  One vote for locking this thread.  No longer on topic and getting snippy.

I'll give you snippy, but I think we're still on topic.  We're talking about the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage, and how it fits into the other religious and social freedoms we enjoy, how those freedoms have grown over time, and how they might be threatened in the future by the very exercise they are designed to protect. 

I think religious bigotry is the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the US.  Funny how that works, isn't it?  It's most commonly conservative religious folks who argue in favor restricting the rights of others, and who have organized against the American expansion of civil rights over the decades.  Those of us without any religion to exercise are no less obligated to defend their right to preach discrimination than we are to defend their other rights.  All we ask in return is that we be allowed to point out the hypocrisy once in a while as a gentle reminder that other people's freedoms are protected just like yours are. 

[regulator]

ATTN MODS:  One vote for locking this thread.  No longer on topic and getting snippy.

+1.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

ATTN MODS:  One vote for locking this thread.  No longer on topic and getting snippy.

I'll give you snippy, but I think we're still on topic. 

Fair enough.  Hope the mods consider your viewpoint too.  :-)

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: Mods may never have seen this if not for Cathy's post.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/about-locking-threads/

There is a "report to moderator" button on the bottom right of each post. Use it, if you think a post is breaking forum rules.  Otherwise a post 5 pages deep on a topic the mods may not be following, or moderating even if they are, isn't going to do anything.  :)

[MDM]

At least that other thread clarified whether F.V was serious, or was making an ironic comment on the post just prior to F.V's here.

[Tyson]

ATTN MODS:  One vote for locking this thread.  No longer on topic and getting snippy.

Disagree - I'm surprise (and impressed) how civil and on-topic things have stayed. 

[Gin1984]

ATTN MODS:  One vote for locking this thread.  No longer on topic and getting snippy.

I'll give you snippy, but I think we're still on topic.  We're talking about the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage, and how it fits into the other religious and social freedoms we enjoy, how those freedoms have grown over time, and how they might be threatened in the future by the very exercise they are designed to protect. 

I think religious bigotry is the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the US.  Funny how that works, isn't it?  It's most commonly conservative religious folks who argue in favor restricting the rights of others, and who have organized against the American expansion of civil rights over the decades.  Those of us without any religion to exercise are no less obligated to defend their right to preach discrimination than we are to defend their other rights.  All we ask in return is that we be allowed to point out the hypocrisy once in a while as a gentle reminder that other people's freedoms are protected just like yours are.

I agree with Sol (and that rarely happens on social discussions, lol).  And I am religious, just not Christian. 

[KisKis]

I have to say that I have enjoyed lurking and reading this thread.  If you take note of my location, you can just imagine the type of arguments I've heard this past week.  This really has been quite a civil discussion.  A few flareups are to be expected when discussing politics and religion.  I knew I could come to a forum that handles the taboo topic of money so well for some intellectual stimulation on these other topics.  Thanks to both sides. 

[Cookie78]

I have to say that I have enjoyed lurking and reading this thread.  If you take note my location, you can just imagine the type of arguments I've heard this past week.  This really has been quite a civil discussion.  A few flareups are to be expected when discussing politics and religion.  I knew I could come to a forum that handles the taboo topic of money so well for some intellectual stimulation on these other topics.  Thanks to both sides.

+1

[sol]

ATTN MODS:  One vote for locking this thread.  No longer on topic and getting snippy.

Disagree - I'm surprise (and impressed) how civil and on-topic things have stayed.

Sometimes, I think that people try to shut down these kinds of discussions because they find them uncomfortable, not because that are inappropriate.  It's a fine line when interpreting your own emotions.

Particularly for people who are raised with a very sheltered world view, the sudden realization that they themselves might be racist or otherwise discriminatory can be a shock.  Nobody likes to think of themselves as opposing equality, but they don't always realize that when their church leaders tell then to vote against something like gay marriage, they become the new generation's David Dukes, footsoldiers of hate.  It's like waking up on the wrong side of history.

And that can be an uncomfortable moment.  I've seen it unfold on race, sexuality, capitalism, religion, even American patriotism.  That moment when you first see that the things you love are more complicated and nuanced than you have been led to believe can be heartbreaking for some people. 

So I don't really begrudge them their unwillingness to talk about it.  Sometimes it's just easier to put your fingers in your ears and fall back on old patterns and try to drown out the people who make you think for yourself.  It's a slowly unfolding process for everybody.  I'm still working on it myself.

[forummm]

Echoing Sol here. I started the thread by saying that I was ashamed of my former views on the subject. It was not comfortable for them to shift. But now I can't understand how I was able to be so blinded by the nonsensical opinions and hypocrisy of others. There are Christian churches that don't allow gays and lesbians to be members or to serve in leadership unless they take a vow of celibacy. Do they do the same thing with all their unmarried heterosexual attendees? I doubt it. Or require anyone who gets divorced to be booted? Or anyone who breaks any of the other commandments? There are a whole bunch of Bible verses that say that one sin is as bad as another (and since it's the Bible and the Bible is full of contradictions, there are others that can be interpreted as saying some sins are worse). And some of these put drunkenness on the same plane as sexual sins. Do these churches require vows of sobriety too? Strange.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/us/with-same-sex-decision-evangelical-churches-address-new-reality.html

[forummm]

This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.

--Jesus in John 15:12

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

--Jesus in John 13:34

For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.

--1 John 3:11

And this is his command:...to love one another as he commanded us.

--1 John 3:23

And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another.

--2 John 1:5

Maybe he meant it.

[Tyson]

I had started to post some of my issues with religion, but I think that's not really called for.  But I will note some statistics that should be concerning to the religious folks.  Namely that people who have no religious affiliation (the 'nones') are seriously on the rise in the US:



And if you break it down by age, the news is even worse (or better, depending on your perspective):

[Kris]

^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.

[Tyson]

^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.

The REALLY interesting part is if you dive a bit deeper into the data, you can see that the hardcore christians (the evangelicals) are not changing very much at all.  They are steady.  It's the moderate (mainline) christians that are leaving the religion to become the Nones:



To bring this back on topic - it is my strong suspicion that the defection from mainline Christianity to Nones strongly parallels the increase in tolerance for things like gay marriage, and a more progressive world view in general. 

[sol]

But I will note some statistics that should be concerning to the religious folks.  Namely that people who have no religious affiliation (the 'nones') are seriously on the rise in the US:

To be fair, the US still lags the rest of the developed world on this measure.  There are still some places that are more religious than America, but not anywhere I'd like to live.  Africa, the middle east, and southeast Asia come to mind.

I sort of see the rising percentage of self identified nones as analogous to other long term trending statistics like vaccination rate, literacy rate, life expectancy, teen pregnancy rate, and violent crime.  These stats tend to lag behind the types of measures we have previously used to measure a country's development, like access to indoor plumbing and electricity or per capita GDP, but they still mark progress.  I'd like to see wealth inequality added to that list, but I think that one is centuries away still.

I think it's all part of the natural progression of societies.  The pyramids were built by slaves who worshipped sun gods. Four thousand years later we have spaceships and internet, but have only recently taken a stand against slavery and we're still stuck with the sun gods and their modern derivatives.  Eventually we'll drop those too as people realize that they just serve to support the same sort of power imbalance now that they did then.  Freedom of information makes it pretty tough to keep thinking adults believing in the supernatural, so I expect that the coming century will see religions of the western world morph into cultural and historical institutions that celebrate their supernatural origins as traditions, not as facts.  My kids still get presents from Santa, even though they know that reindeer can't really fly.

Judaism is already most of the way down this road.  Most of the Jews I know are atheists, despite active involvement with their temples and traditions.  They see it as a cultural identity and a celebration of their past, but they're not seriously preparing for the arrival of the son of god to walk among men.  They recognize that their creation stories are historical embellishments that became myths, just like the Greek and Roman myths, the Egyptian myths, the Native American myths, and the Christian myths.  Beautiful stories worth teaching and remembering, but not literally true.

it is my strong suspicion that the defection from mainline Christianity to Nones strongly parallels the increase in tolerance for things like gay marriage, and a more progressive world view in general. 

Wow, that's a much more succinct way of saying the same thing I just spent three paragraphs on.

[Tyson]

Judaism is already most of the way down this road.  Most of the Jews I know are atheists, despite active involvement with their temples and traditions.  They see it as a cultural identity and a celebration of their past, but they're not seriously preparing for the arrival of the son of god to walk among men.  They recognize that their creation stories are myths, just like the Greek and Roman myths, the Egyptian myths, the Native American myths, and the Christian myths.  Beautiful stories worth teaching and remembering, but not literally true.

That's a REALLY good point, I've never thought of it that way.  Now that you put it that way, I think that is probably spot on.  I do think there are important social and community functions that a church fulfills that is really difficult to replicate elsewhere, which is part of the reason why church is so attractive to a lot of non-evangelical believers.

[arebelspy]

^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.

Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).

[Kris]

^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.

Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).

Of course.  I get that part of many Christian faiths is the obligation to prosletyze.  Which I find absolutely maddening, for a number of reasons, but I get why they are told to do it -- both the stated and the instated reasons.  I was commenting on the irritating hypocrisy of those who try to force their faith on others, but then cry foul when they think that a constitutional ruling by the courts is tantamount to someone else forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

[Tyson]

^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.

Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).

Of course.  I get that part of many Christian faiths is the obligation to prosletyze.  Which I find absolutely maddening, for a number of reasons, but I get why they are told to do it -- both the stated and the instated reasons.  I was commenting on the irritating hypocrisy of those who try to force their faith on others, but then cry foul when they think that a constitutional ruling by the courts is tantamount to someone else forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

Proselytizing is mainly the focus of evangelicals, the moderates not so much.  Which is probably why the Evangelicals are not shrinking, they are holding steady.  The moderates, as noted, are the place where the real change is happening.  And that's to be expected.

The interesting thing (to me, anyway), is how much of Evangelical belief is geographically specific.  It tends to cluster around certain states very strongly, and other states not at all.  I am of course referring to "the South".  The Evangelicals (and thus the Tea Party) have a strong influence/control in these states and that's not likely to change any time soon, because as you can see, the percentage of Evangelicals is not really changing all that much. 

What you end up seeing as a result of this is that on progressive social issues, this group now realizes they cannot win the national conversation.  So they re-focus on the issue of "States Rights". 

Of course, as a progressive myself, nowadays when I hear the term "States Rights" I usually translate it in my head to "We are doing something shitty and don't want no stinking Federal Government coming in here and changing things."  Which is why you see the rhetoric around gay marriage invoke "States Rights" so often from the Right/Conservatives/Tea Party/Evangelical crowd.

I predict this same set of arguments will come up when it comes to pretty much any social change.

[CommonCents]

Judaism is already most of the way down this road.  Most of the Jews I know are atheists, despite active involvement with their temples and traditions.  They see it as a cultural identity and a celebration of their past, but they're not seriously preparing for the arrival of the son of god to walk among men.  They recognize that their creation stories are historical embellishments that became myths, just like the Greek and Roman myths, the Egyptian myths, the Native American myths, and the Christian myths.  Beautiful stories worth teaching and remembering, but not literally true.

I'd agree with this in regards to most of my Jewish friends (and my husband).

[Squirrel away]

I thought it was fantastic news.:) The human world is slowly evolving.

[forummm]

^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.

Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).

Of course.  I get that part of many Christian faiths is the obligation to prosletyze.  Which I find absolutely maddening, for a number of reasons, but I get why they are told to do it -- both the stated and the instated reasons.  I was commenting on the irritating hypocrisy of those who try to force their faith on others, but then cry foul when they think that a constitutional ruling by the courts is tantamount to someone else forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

There's a strong Christian tradition of reveling in "persecution"--whether real or imagined. It's commonly taught that anything that goes wrong in the world is Satan's doing, and that anything going wrong in their own lives is Satan's doing because God is allowing them to be tested. So many Christians see some policy decision that doesn't impact their lives but take it as though Satan is deliberately doing it, and "winning" the battle.

"Being persecuted" is a strong social tool to rally people in a group around a common enemy--sort of a negative integration tactic. It builds group cohesion, solidifies individual identification with the movement, and moves people more into an emotional reaction paradigm instead of a thinking and rational paradigm.

Many Christians see anything they don't like and call it persecution. Someone saying "Happy Hollidays" is fighting the "War on Christmas(TM)" and that's a form of persecution. Policies that don't allow schools to force group prayer is another form of "persecution". It's really common. The shifts in religious belief in the country is definitely enough to get the battle flags flying.

[Kris]

^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.

Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).

Of course.  I get that part of many Christian faiths is the obligation to prosletyze.  Which I find absolutely maddening, for a number of reasons, but I get why they are told to do it -- both the stated and the instated reasons.  I was commenting on the irritating hypocrisy of those who try to force their faith on others, but then cry foul when they think that a constitutional ruling by the courts is tantamount to someone else forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

There's a strong Christian tradition of reveling in "persecution"--whether real or imagined. It's commonly taught that anything that goes wrong in the world is Satan's doing, and that anything going wrong in their own lives is Satan's doing because God is allowing them to be tested. So many Christians see some policy decision that doesn't impact their lives but take it as though Satan is deliberately doing it, and "winning" the battle.

"Being persecuted" is a strong social tool to rally people in a group around a common enemy--sort of a negative integration tactic. It builds group cohesion, solidifies individual identification with the movement, and moves people more into an emotional reaction paradigm instead of a thinking and rational paradigm.

Many Christians see anything they don't like and call it persecution. Someone saying "Happy Hollidays" is fighting the "War on Christmas(TM)" and that's a form of persecution. Policies that don't allow schools to force group prayer is another form of "persecution". It's really common. The shifts in religious belief in the country is definitely enough to get the battle flags flying.

Well put.

[MLKnits]

Actually, the curriculum in Ontario has been updated this year to explain gay sex in classes . . . soo . . . mebbe your chart is incorrect.

I know you're mostly kidding, but just as a reminder for the lurkers, there's nothing gay people do that straights don't also do--it's not like we have secret different genitalia. Straights have vastly more anal sex, on a numbers basis and probably even proportionally, than gay men do, and there's certainly plenty of oral all around.

It's vital to be honest in sex-ed classes about the real things people do (not just "vaginal intercourse exists, don't do it or you're a bad person," which has been proven very thoroughly to increase teen pregnancies and STIs). By acknowledging other acts, we help kids learn to use protection and safer sex, and to choose lower-risk activities. If teens are going to be having sex anyway--and they are--I'm glad to live in a province that makes sure they know handjobs (and masturbation, for that matter!) exist and are low-risk.

[GuitarStv]

Actually, the curriculum in Ontario has been updated this year to explain gay sex in classes . . . soo . . . mebbe your chart is incorrect.

I know you're mostly kidding, but just as a reminder for the lurkers, there's nothing gay people do that straights don't also do--it's not like we have secret different genitalia. Straights have vastly more anal sex, on a numbers basis and probably even proportionally, than gay men do, and there's certainly plenty of oral all around.

It's vital to be honest in sex-ed classes about the real things people do (not just "vaginal intercourse exists, don't do it or you're a bad person," which has been proven very thoroughly to increase teen pregnancies and STIs). By acknowledging other acts, we help kids learn to use protection and safer sex, and to choose lower-risk activities. If teens are going to be having sex anyway--and they are--I'm glad to live in a province that makes sure they know handjobs (and masturbation, for that matter!) exist and are low-risk.

You and I know this . . . but the backlash against updating a badly out of date curriculum in Canada was rather shocking.  The funny thing is, you can opt to take your kid out of sex ed if you want . . . all the protesting was centered around trying to prevent other children from being educated, using the reasoning that the educated children might tell what they know to the zealots and ruin the carefully crafted reality that their parents had been allowing them to see.

[MLKnits]

As for gay marriage, etc.  I have unformed views, by and large.  I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it.  I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them.  It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with.  Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships?  Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*?  I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all.  There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.

On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.

In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.

So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.

[MLKnits]

Exactly. And of course, clergy has always been able to refuse to marry people whose beliefs or practices they don't agree with.

The more interesting question, to me, is how the "religious freedom" argument only gets extended to refusal to marry people (which, yes: who wants that energy in their wedding?) and people rarely talk about the other side of it, which is that lots of churches, temples, mosques, etc, have been willing and happy to marry same-sex people for decades while being refused by the state. What about their religious freedoms, if we're going to endlessly debate the right to refuse? There are pastors and so on in Alabama and Mississippi who, if their governors can make it happen, will not be able to marry their parishioners because of state action. Somehow the people who claim to be centrally concerned with religious freedom don't seem to mind that.

[KodeBlue]

I hope this thread doesn't get locked. I consider this a mustachian issue; if you accept the premise that in addition we to trying to earn, save and be frugal we should make sure our financial and legal affairs are in order. For me as a gay man this means making sure that if either my spouse or myself should be faced with a catastrophic illness or death that the other is protected and provided for. Marriage offers certain protections and advantages, such as survivor benefits, and I believe it's only fair that same sex couples have access to legal marriage if they feel this is the a good option for them. Some couples, same sex or heterosexual, decide to marry, some don't based on their situation. But I believe every couple should have the choice.

[Gin1984]

Actually, the curriculum in Ontario has been updated this year to explain gay sex in classes . . . soo . . . mebbe your chart is incorrect.

I know you're mostly kidding, but just as a reminder for the lurkers, there's nothing gay people do that straights don't also do--it's not like we have secret different genitalia. Straights have vastly more anal sex, on a numbers basis and probably even proportionally, than gay men do, and there's certainly plenty of oral all around.

It's vital to be honest in sex-ed classes about the real things people do (not just "vaginal intercourse exists, don't do it or you're a bad person," which has been proven very thoroughly to increase teen pregnancies and STIs). By acknowledging other acts, we help kids learn to use protection and safer sex, and to choose lower-risk activities. If teens are going to be having sex anyway--and they are--I'm glad to live in a province that makes sure they know handjobs (and masturbation, for that matter!) exist and are low-risk.

I know this is serious, but the bolded made me laugh.

[forummm]

Exactly. And of course, clergy has always been able to refuse to marry people whose beliefs or practices they don't agree with.

The more interesting question, to me, is how the "religious freedom" argument only gets extended to refusal to marry people (which, yes: who wants that energy in their wedding?) and people rarely talk about the other side of it, which is that lots of churches, temples, mosques, etc, have been willing and happy to marry same-sex people for decades while being refused by the state. What about their religious freedoms, if we're going to endlessly debate the right to refuse? There are pastors and so on in Alabama and Mississippi who, if their governors can make it happen, will not be able to marry their parishioners because of state action. Somehow the people who claim to be centrally concerned with religious freedom don't seem to mind that.

No, you don't understand. It's the speaker's "religious freedom" as interpreted by themselves that's important--not some other person's.

[regulator]

As for gay marriage, etc.  I have unformed views, by and large.  I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it.  I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them.  It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with.  Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships?  Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*?  I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all.  There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.

On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.

In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.

So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.

I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.  That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children.  The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination.  Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.

[johnny847]

As for gay marriage, etc.  I have unformed views, by and large.  I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it.  I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them.  It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with.  Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships?  Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*?  I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all.  There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.

On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.

In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.

So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.

I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.  That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children.  The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination.  Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.

Remember when people asked you when you would start listening?

Here you have conclusions presented in front of you and you are casting them aside.
If you think these are cherry picked statistics, then present other studies with different conclusions. Otherwise, I don't see the point of you staying on this thread any longer if you're not going to listen to what is being said.

[Philociraptor]

I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.

Moderation seems content to let most discussions carry on as they will, as long as they remain civil. As far as mocking goes, religious belief shouldn't be protected from criticism, as long as that criticism doesn't become an ad hominem attack on the person professing that belief. You should be able to provide rational, logical arguments for why you believe homosexual relationships shouldn't be given the same treatment under the government's law, and those reasons should hold weight on their own. Your belief that a particular religion is the best is no different than my beliefs that country music sucks and my wife is beautiful.

[Kris]

As for gay marriage, etc.  I have unformed views, by and large.  I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it.  I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them.  It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with.  Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships?  Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*?  I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all.  There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.

On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.

In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.

So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.

I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.  That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children.  The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination.  Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.

I don't understand why you consider MLKnits' remarks mockery just because they don't support what you believe. He did not cite sources, true, but there are studies on a number of the things he says.. Re raising children, here is an article that rovides abstracts and links to scholarly articles to some of the studies done.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

[Cathy]

The more interesting question, to me, is how the "religious freedom" argument only gets extended to refusal to marry people (which, yes: who wants that energy in their wedding?) and people rarely talk about the other side of it, which is that lots of churches, temples, mosques, etc, have been willing and happy to marry same-sex people for decades while being refused by the state. ...

This is another argument that isn't discussed much. In Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General), 65 OR (3d) 161, 2003 CanLII 26403, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the argument that gender-based restrictions on marriage were unconstitutional because they violated the religious freedom of ministers who supported marrying couples of the same gender. However, the Court found that the argument lacked merit because "this case does not engage religious rights and freedoms" (para 53). According to the Court, these ministers were free to perform all the same-gender marriages they wanted (although the state would not legally recognise the marriages) and therefore freedom of religion was not violated (paras 56-57). However, the Court did accept the alternative argument that the restrictions violated constitutional equality rights by discriminating against gay people, and, as a result, the judgment of the court immediately removed gender restrictions on marriage in Ontario, back in 2003.

[TrulyStashin]

Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here.  They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it.

But the U.S. government DID create a definition for marriage for use in tax laws, visitation rights, adoption laws, etc. The supreme court has simply decided that the definition they created must include homosexuals due to the 14th amendment. Not sure what you mean here.

And, the decision in Obergefell is aligned with a long string of precedent all of which says, essentially, that Americans have a fundamental right to order their private lives as they see fit and government can only infringe on that right when it has a compelling interest and the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.  In this case, there is no compelling interest in restricting marriage only to heterosexuals -- religious objections are not legitimate state interests.  The case law on this principle goes back 100 years and it supports a wide range of privacy interests:  educating children as parents see fit, marrying outside of your race, end of life decisions, birth control, abortion,  non-criminal sexual behavior between consenting adults and etc. and etc.

[sol]

religious belief shouldn't be protected from criticism, as long as that criticism doesn't become an ad hominem attack on the person professing that belief. You should be able to provide rational, logical arguments for why you believe homosexual relationships shouldn't be given the same treatment under the government's law

Those are the kinds of arguments I've been seeking here.  If you believe gay people should have fewer rights than straight people, please explain why.  I'm genuinely interested in hearing the rationalizations for such beliefs.

People used to cite the bible as justification for slavery, but as a nation we've mostly accepted that the bible is a product of its ancient times, and some things that it supports are no longer acceptable to us.  I think we're moving that direction on gay rights, too.  The people who wrote the bible lived in a very different world than we do, and I don't think you have to toss out the good parts just because parts of it are openly racist or whatever.

The problem, raptor, with asking people to provide logical defenses of supernatural beliefs is that there aren't any.  The very nature of the supernatural makes it logically indefensible, so you have to appeal instead to emotion, or societal benefit, or tradition.  They are just as likely to be offended by your request as I would be if you asked me to explain how the internet works by citing the koran.  It's just the wrong medium to address that particular topic.

[regulator]

As for gay marriage, etc.  I have unformed views, by and large.  I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it.  I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them.  It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with.  Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships?  Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*?  I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all.  There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.

On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.

In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.

So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.

I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.  That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children.  The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination.  Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.

I don't understand why you consider MLKnits' remarks mockery just because they don't support what you believe. He did not cite sources, true, but there are studies on a number of the things he says.. Re raising children, here is an article that rovides abstracts and links to scholarly articles to some of the studies done.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

Ah, cited sources.  Thanks.  Much better than bald statements with no backing, one way or the other.

As for the rest, even the most bigoted atheists seem to express frustration that they cannot "reason" with religious people.  Congratulations, you have it!  Religious people have decided for reasons of their own that they believe in the tenets of their faith.  Believe, not reason to that position (apologetics and theological arguments aside).  Yes, you will not be able to use argument to persuade them to drop their faith.  So give it up.  Learn to live and let live.  You are wasting your time.

I love all the posters beating on me for "not listening" or trumpeting the superiority of my religion.  I have done no such things.  The problem is that there is such dogmatic groupthink here that anyone that does not 99.9% agree with the most outspoken posters is evil/not listening/irrational/whatever.  For all the alleged tolerance you folks profess, it sure does not extend to anyone who disagrees with you.

Well, I leave you to enjoy the groupthink and high-fiving.  enjoy.

[Kris]

As for gay marriage, etc.  I have unformed views, by and large.  I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it.  I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them.  It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with.  Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships?  Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*?  I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all.  There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.

On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.

In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.

So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.

I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.  That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children.  The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination.  Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.

I don't understand why you consider MLKnits' remarks mockery just because they don't support what you believe. He did not cite sources, true, but there are studies on a number of the things he says.. Re raising children, here is an article that rovides abstracts and links to scholarly articles to some of the studies done.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

Ah, cited sources.  Thanks.  Much better than bald statements with no backing, one way or the other.

As for the rest, even the most bigoted atheists seem to express frustration that they cannot "reason" with religious people.  Congratulations, you have it!  Religious people have decided for reasons of their own that they believe in the tenets of their faith.  Believe, not reason to that position (apologetics and theological arguments aside).  Yes, you will not be able to use argument to persuade them to drop their faith.  So give it up.  Learn to live and let live.  You are wasting your time.

I love all the posters beating on me for "not listening" or trumpeting the superiority of my religion.  I have done no such things.  The problem is that there is such dogmatic groupthink here that anyone that does not 99.9% agree with the most outspoken posters is evil/not listening/irrational/whatever.  For all the alleged tolerance you folks profess, it sure does not extend to anyone who disagrees with you.

Well, I leave you to enjoy the groupthink and high-fiving.  enjoy.

What I had hoped, because you are apparently someone who can listen and are reasohable, was that by providing you with some sources that show you credible studies say children fare just as well if not better with same-sex parents, you might engage with those sources here, as they appear to contradict what you believe.  Instead, you go off on a sarcastic tangent that in no way addresses the source I provided.

That kind of behavior might be part of why some people here get the feeling you aren't interested n actually discussing the issue reasonably. 

[Gin1984]

As for gay marriage, etc.  I have unformed views, by and large.  I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it.  I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them.  It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with.  Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships?  Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*?  I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all.  There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.

On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.

In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.

So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.

I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.  That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children.  The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination.  Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.

Actually many children on homosexual couples in these studies included not only adopted but also the biological child of one partner.  Why would those children be any different than the overall population?  And no, he is not cherry picking.  That data is common knowledge in the psych field.  Either there is no difference or the homosexual partners do better.  I'm straight, I have a daughter, that is not an attack on me.  It means I should look at what homosexuals are doing right, that is all.  Why would a moderator do anything here?  That he did not cite an article when there are so many to be considered common knowledge, seriously?

[sol]

In reg's defense, there has been kind of a lot of high fiving in this thread. 

I was hoping that he or others of faith might contribute more, for example by providing their thoughts on why it is okay to have laws that discriminate against people for being different, or extolling the virtues of adhering to a belief system several millennia old.  Our how they reconcile their apparent distaste for social progress with their presumed embrace of technological progress.  These open questions are an opportunity for two way communication, if anyone wants to chip in.  I'm trying to invite dissenting views, not shout them down.

IPDaily has written a bunch on these topics, and I thought his insights were interesting even when I disagreed with his positions.

[beltim]

In reg's defense, there has been kind of a lot of high fiving in this thread. 

I was hoping that he or others of faith might contribute more, for example by providing their thoughts on why it is okay to have laws that discriminate against people for being different, or extolling the virtues of adhering to a belief system several millennia old.  Our how they reconcile their apparent distaste for social progress with their presumed embrace of technological progress.  These open questions are an opportunity for two way communication, if anyone wants to chip in.  I'm trying to invite dissenting views, not shout them down.

IPDaily has written a bunch on these topics, and I thought his insights were interesting even when I disagreed with his positions.

Much of this thread frames the discussion as people of faith are holding back social progress, and your post is an exemplar of that framing.  I've only gotten involved in the discussion when misinformation was being disseminated, and so here I enter again. 

There's a lack of precision in certain comments, for example your most recent, and several of Sparafusile's, that could lead one to think the comments are an attack on people of faith, or a faith itself, without regard to what those people, or that faith, actually profess.  Sparafusile cherry-picked a survey to suggest that American Christians were overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage.  The data, in fact, reveal that a majority of most American Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, including some of the biggest affiliations: Catholics at 60% approval and Mainline Protestants at 62%.  Sometimes Christians overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage: see Unitarian Universalists at 94%!  These numbers DO NOT exclude the "don't know" answer, so they're a minimum.

Most religious Americans support social progress, don't agree with laws that discriminate against people for people being different, and would probably object strongly to your characterization of them.

Numbers from http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational-family/#.VZMVNaY_Zt1

[sol]

Much of this thread frames the discussion as people of faith are holding back social progress, and your post is an exemplar of that framing.

I didn't mean to assert that a majority of religious people oppose social progress, but I stand by my (precise) assertion that most opposition has been organized by religious groups.  Do you know of ANY groups who oppose gay marriage for reasons other than their religion?

There are county clerks in multiple states refusing to issue marriage licensed today to same sex couples because of their faith.  To my eyes, this is akin to the aforementioned Hindu refusing to slaughter a cow; why did you become a butcher?

If your religion prevents you from doing a job, don't do that job.  It's not discrimination when you are the one refusing to do what your employer has hired you to do.  It IS discrimination when you force your religious beliefs onto people who don't share them by violating their legally protected rights.

We're not talking about religious marriage, we're talking about filing legal paperwork with the county.  Priests and Shamans have always been able to refuse to marry anyone.  But a civil servant is not allowed to deny your driver's license or voter registration or marriage application because of their religious beliefs, any more than they are allowed to grant polygamous marriages if they are Mormon.  The law doesn't allow it.  Their job is to uphold the law.

I happily accept your criticism about framing the discussion in terms of how religion tramples rights, instead of the good things religions have done, because this is a thread about trampled rights. 

[arebelspy]

religious belief shouldn't be protected from criticism, as long as that criticism doesn't become an ad hominem attack on the person professing that belief. You should be able to provide rational, logical arguments for why you believe homosexual relationships shouldn't be given the same treatment under the government's law

Those are the kinds of arguments I've been seeking here.  If you believe gay people should have fewer rights than straight people, please explain why.  I'm genuinely interested in hearing the rationalizations for such beliefs.

On other forums I visit, almost all of the reasons I've seen are related to "harm to the children"--which, statistically/scientifically, doesn't hold up (and even if it did, still fails philosophically, IMO, as if studies showed that children of a particular race did worse, or children of mixed race couples, or whatever, we'd still let them get married.  We still let poor people get married, even though their children do worse).

I haven't seen any other (rational/logical/non-religious) arguments besides this one.

[forummm]

Sometimes Christians overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage: see Unitarian Universalists at 94%!

I don't think Unitarian Universalist is a Christian denomination. There's no discussion of Christ at all in their belief statements. And even a belief in God is not necessarily required.
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe

http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sacred-texts

Unitarian Universalists are agnostic, theist, atheist and everything in between.

They are kind of a non-religious religion. Perhaps that's why they are so overwhelmingly in support of same-sex marriage.