SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[beltim]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)

I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).

So there are really at least two conversations going on.  The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage.  And that's what you're talking about.

The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage.  This is factually inaccurate.  I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US. 

Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible.  Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

[Philociraptor]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)

I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).

So there are really at least two conversations going on.  The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage.  And that's what you're talking about.

The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage.  This is factually inaccurate.  I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US. 

Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible.  Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

If what you say is true, it sounds like lots of lawmakers around the country are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and instead voting with their individual party/religious views.

[Gin1984]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)

I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).

So there are really at least two conversations going on.  The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage.  And that's what you're talking about.

The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage. This is factually inaccurate.  I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US. 

Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible.  Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

I don't think it is the majority of Christians, but it my experience, it is the majority of leadership among Christians.  And when you fiscally support or vote based on your religious leadership, you can't not be held responsible.  For example, most Catholic women have used birth control yet the Catholic leadership is very opposed to birth control.  But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control.  Is it reasonable to say, Catholics are opposed to birth control even when the majority isn't?  Well given the leadership is and that leadership actively stops other from using it, yes.  If you join a group whose rules state one thing, you can't be angry when outsiders think you agree with you.  By joining that group you are supporting the leadership. 

[Russ]

The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage.  This is factually inaccurate.  I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US. 

I think we can grant you that most Christian s *currently* support same-sex marriage. The argument from the other side is that *in the past* Christians did not approve so highly and were *at that time* the main cause of such denial of rights which by default carries over to *today* leaving religion still to blame. Hopefully this clarifies the argument (unless I'm mistaken)

[beltim]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)

I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).

So there are really at least two conversations going on.  The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage.  And that's what you're talking about.

The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage.  This is factually inaccurate.  I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US. 

Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible.  Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

If what you say is true, it sounds like lots of lawmakers around the country are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and instead voting with their individual party/religious views.

I think there are two issues here.  One, yes, some lawmakers are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and vote with their individual party/religious views.  Second, (and I think larger although I don't have any data on the relative amounts) a lot of the religious opposition comes from certain denominations dominant in certain geographics regions - for example, evangelical Christians.  There are 15 states where white evangelical Christians are the largest religious group (not tied, and I would prefer data that didn't divide by race, but this is what I found).  13 of these states have net disapproval of same sex marriage, accounting for a large majority of the 17 states that have net disapproval of same-sex marriage according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#By_state
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/26/the-religious-states-of-america-in-22-maps/

[Bob W]

It has always amazed me that many christian appear to be opposed to gays given that Jesus appears as a gay man in many respects.  Of course many of these so called Christians are opposed to alcohol even if though JC was a wine swilling carpenter.           I'm looking forward to the relegalization of polygomay in the near future.  Their argument is at least as compelling as the gays and much wider accepted internationally.

[MDM]

But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control. 

Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control?  Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?

[Midwest]

The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage.  This is factually inaccurate.  I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US. 

I think we can grant you that most Christian s *currently* support same-sex marriage. The argument from the other side is that *in the past* Christians did not approve so highly and were *at that time* the main cause of such denial of rights which by default carries over to *today* leaving religion still to blame. Hopefully this clarifies the argument (unless I'm mistaken)

I don't think most people supported same sex marriage or gay rights until recently.  There has been a massive societal shift on this issue over the past 15 years.

The first country to legalize same sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001.  Since Europe is commonly held up as post-Christian in many circles, why was Europe so late to the party?

I believe the answer is that although Christians were slightly later to approve, the world (Christian and non-Christian) did not approve until recently.   Many on this thread attempt to indict Christianity when in reality it was society as a whole that didn't approve until very recently.

[MDM]

More than just Christians have shifted on this issue.

Very true: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-clinton-twisty-paths-gay-marriage-32068534

[Gin1984]

But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control. 

Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control?  Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?

Depending on the employer it can be both, however, no other class of drugs can be refused to be covered by your employer which I consider almost as bad.  The exception is California which does not allow such foolishness.  There may be other states that don't allow you to discriminate, but I don't know how they responded to hobby lobby.

[Tyson]

The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.

If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)

I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).

So there are really at least two conversations going on.  The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage.  And that's what you're talking about.

The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage.  This is factually inaccurate.  I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US. 

Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible.  Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

If what you say is true, it sounds like lots of lawmakers around the country are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and instead voting with their individual party/religious views.

I think there are two issues here.  One, yes, some lawmakers are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and vote with their individual party/religious views.  Second, (and I think larger although I don't have any data on the relative amounts) a lot of the religious opposition comes from certain denominations dominant in certain geographics regions - for example, evangelical Christians.  There are 15 states where white evangelical Christians are the largest religious group (not tied, and I would prefer data that didn't divide by race, but this is what I found).  13 of these states have net disapproval of same sex marriage, accounting for a large majority of the 17 states that have net disapproval of same-sex marriage according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#By_state
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/26/the-religious-states-of-america-in-22-maps/

This is very true.  Which is why you get people in these areas bleating about "States Rights", because they don't want to toe the line with regard to national changes.  Almost always "States Rights" translates to "Things are regressive around here, just the way we like it."  You saw this same crap argument with regard to segregation and the civil rights movement. 

[forummm]

But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control. 

Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control?  Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?

I have heard of religious employers refusing to hire someone because they had sex outside of marriage. Or firing them because they had sex outside of marriage. But I don't know about preventing them from using birth control.

[Kris]

Sigh.  I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.

That's not a trait unique to Christianity.  That's one of the problems when we try and put people into homogeneous groups.  Often they are not nearly as similar as we think they are.

Notice how Kris said it's a cardinal rule of people, not Christians.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Which is why I said "people".

[Gin1984]

But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control. 

Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control?  Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?

I have heard of religious employers refusing to hire someone because they had sex outside of marriage. Or firing them because they had sex outside of marriage. But I don't know about preventing them from using birth control.

Employees of the Madison Catholic Diocese were warned in 2010 that if they used birth control, they could face termination.
Kelly Romenesko was fired from her 7 year job teaching French at two Wisconsin Catholic schools because she and her husband used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant.

I went to Catholic school from first through high school.  It happens a lot.

[forummm]

But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control. 

Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control?  Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?

I have heard of religious employers refusing to hire someone because they had sex outside of marriage. Or firing them because they had sex outside of marriage. But I don't know about preventing them from using birth control.

Employees of the Madison Catholic Diocese were warned in 2010 that if they used birth control, they could face termination.
Kelly Romenesko was fired from her 7 year job teaching French at two Wisconsin Catholic schools because she and her husband used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant.

I went to Catholic school from first through high school.  It happens a lot.

I feel like that should be illegal. How is it your employer's business what medical care you get? Or how you choose to get pregnant?

[MDM]

A couple of sites with good, although far from identical, perspectives:
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/states-take-action-stop-bosses%E2%80%99-religious-beliefs-trumping-women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-health-care
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/facts-liberals-dont-want-you-to-hear-how-many-kinds-of-contraception-hobby-lobby-offers-its-employees

And a recent comment indicating that, in practice, all but the most extreme on either side may end up satisfied:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/06/25/hobby-lobby-fall-out/

[Gin1984]

But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control. 

Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control?  Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?

I have heard of religious employers refusing to hire someone because they had sex outside of marriage. Or firing them because they had sex outside of marriage. But I don't know about preventing them from using birth control.

Employees of the Madison Catholic Diocese were warned in 2010 that if they used birth control, they could face termination.
Kelly Romenesko was fired from her 7 year job teaching French at two Wisconsin Catholic schools because she and her husband used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant.

I went to Catholic school from first through high school.  It happens a lot.

I feel like that should be illegal. How is it your employer's business what medical care you get? Or how you choose to get pregnant?

I agree with you but when the Supreme Court says "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.", it is obvious that they are willing to put the medical decisions regarding reproductive health as a lower priority than ANY of other medical care.

[forummm]

A couple of sites with good, although far from identical, perspectives:
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/states-take-action-stop-bosses%E2%80%99-religious-beliefs-trumping-women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-health-care
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/facts-liberals-dont-want-you-to-hear-how-many-kinds-of-contraception-hobby-lobby-offers-its-employees

And a recent comment indicating that, in practice, all but the most extreme on either side may end up satisfied:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/06/25/hobby-lobby-fall-out/

The employer behavior in the first link is just horrible. Echoing my prior comments here.

If Hobby Lobby does provide 16 of the 20 methods, that's great. It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.

The Harvard link is correct. The administration is trying to work something out so that women will still have access to contraceptive coverage even if their employer says no, and still complies with the SCOTUS ruling.

[MDM]

It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.

Definitely open for interpretation.  E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere? 

And in another politics-makes-strange-bedfellows twist, there's the Republican proposal to allow birth control to be sold over the counter (without prescription) that Democrats oppose.  Of course both sides claim to have good reasons for their positions....

[Gin1984]

It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.

Definitely open for interpretation.  E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere? 

And in another politics-makes-strange-bedfellows twist, there's the Republican proposal to allow birth control to be sold over the counter (without prescription) that Democrats oppose.  Of course both sides claim to have good reasons for their positions....

Which do the MDs agree with?  What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs?  How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such?  Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO.  Then again, Hobby won even though their position had nothing to do with medical fact, so maybe reality does not matter in medical matters, lol.

[MDM]

Which do the MDs agree with?  What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs?  How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such?  Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO.

In this case, it appears the MDs generally agree with the Republicans.  E.g., http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contraceptives and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/15/why-republicans-are-pushing-for-over-the-counter-birth-control/.

Of course there are counterarguments from various perspectives.

[Gin1984]

Which do the MDs agree with?  What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs?  How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such?  Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO.

In this case, it appears the MDs generally agree with the Republicans.  E.g., http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contraceptives and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/15/why-republicans-are-pushing-for-over-the-counter-birth-control/.

Of course there are counterarguments from various perspectives.

Thank you for posting that.  I do wonder if opinions/data have changed from 2012 (when it was published) and 2004 (when some of the data was collected) and now with the ACA. 
Though, I don't buy the second article at all, give the GOP leadership's history on women's reproductive issues.  Just from that my assumption is the GOP is saying this should be done in regards to women, don't do it.  I admit my bias there.

[forummm]

It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.

Definitely open for interpretation.  E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere? 

And in another politics-makes-strange-bedfellows twist, there's the Republican proposal to allow birth control to be sold over the counter (without prescription) that Democrats oppose.  Of course both sides claim to have good reasons for their positions....

I think getting super word-parsy on a tweet is a little silly. By nature they have to be short hand. In practice, prohibiting coverage through an employer plan is tantamount (absent additional action by the administration) to denying the ability to get coverage elsewhere. No plan sells coverage for just contraception. And purchasing an entire additional (and duplicative) health plan is prohibitively expensive. So if she had more characters and thought of it she could have appended "through employer health plans" to the end to make the meaning even more clear.

But that wasn't the way that the linked article was taking it anyway.

It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.

Definitely open for interpretation.  E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere? 

And in another politics-makes-strange-bedfellows twist, there's the Republican proposal to allow birth control to be sold over the counter (without prescription) that Democrats oppose.  Of course both sides claim to have good reasons for their positions....

Which do the MDs agree with?  What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs?  How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such?  Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO.  Then again, Hobby won even though their position had nothing to do with medical fact, so maybe reality does not matter in medical matters, lol.

Public health and physician groups have mixed feelings about this issue. There are risk factors that should be screened for before anyone starts a hormonal contraceptive. And you need a pregnancy test as well otherwise you can harm the fetus. And women also need to know the proper way to use the method. If it's your first time using that method you may not know and may be too embarrassed to ask. And methods are very ineffective if not used correctly. There's also a concern that women may not know the best dosage for themselves. And if women are going to a physician to get the prescription, they can get all the other associated care that is recommended for them like counseling to prevent STIs (since hormonal contraception doesn't prevent those), intimate partner violence screening, cervical cancer screening, etc. There's also the issue that it is against the law for an employer-sponsored health plan to reimburse for an OTC medication that was not prescribed by a doctor, so women would be out of pocket for the cost.

On the other hand, it would be more convenient for women who 1) have already visited a physician, 2) have already established which medication and dosage works for them, 3) have already received the recommended preventive care, 4) already know how to use the method appropriately, and 5) are able to pay for it out of pocket to be able to get it without a prescription.

Generally people feel that, in this case, increasing access is more important than the other risks stated. But with mixed feelings.

[forummm]

My guess is that Republicans are trying this tactic because it will remove a plank of the argument about the 'war against women'. Since it was clearly conservative groups that worked to strike down the requirement for contraceptive coverage for some employer sponsored plans, they are associated with restricting access to contraceptives for women. By allowing it to be OTC, they 1) don't anger the religious employer groups, and 2) provide more convenient access to it for women. So it makes the argument about contraceptives (which are used by almost 100% of women at some point in their life) have less political blowback against the party. With all the Republican candidates talking about rape and whether it was a legitimate rape and passing many laws around the country to restrict or effectively eliminate abortion access in a state and trying to block equal pay for women laws, etc, they've taken quite a beating on women's issues. This is a step to change the narrative.

[Gin1984]

My guess is that Republicans are trying this tactic because it will remove a plank of the argument about the 'war against women'. Since it was clearly conservative groups that worked to strike down the requirement for contraceptive coverage for some employer sponsored plans, they are associated with restricting access to contraceptives for women. By allowing it to be OTC, they 1) don't anger the religious employer groups, and 2) provide more convenient access to it for women. So it makes the argument about contraceptives (which are used by almost 100% of women at some point in their life) have less political blowback against the party. With all the Republican candidates talking about rape and whether it was a legitimate rape and passing many laws around the country to restrict or effectively eliminate abortion access in a state and trying to block equal pay for women laws, etc, they've taken quite a beating on women's issues. This is a step to change the narrative.

Except that most poor women can't afford many types of birth control, some can't even afford birth control pills which would keep them from access it.  There have been studies that show an IUD being one of the most effective means of birth control (less chance of user error), but is it the number one method, no.  Because it is too costly.  In addition, not every birth control works for each woman, and for pain relief, it can become ineffective. The only one that works for me now, after many years on is $50 every month.  Most poor Americans don't have an extra $600 laying around.
Because once they are over the counter, they can attack planned parenthood for subsiding them (even though planned parenthood gives out condoms). 
You assume this is to change how they are seen on women's issues, I think it is same shit, different way. 

[MDM]

My guess is that Republicans are trying this tactic because it will remove a plank of the argument about the 'war against women'.

I tend to agree. 

There is a fraction of politicians who do things primarily because they think those things are good for the country.  The different parties tend to have different opinions on what constitutes said goodness, but at least I can respect people who reason that way.

There is a fraction of politicians who do things primarily because they think those things will get them (re)elected.  I have little to no respect for those.

One can debate the size of the above fractions, but it seems clear that each major party has both.

It would be nice if Democrats would work with the Republicans on the OTC birth control issue rather than reflexively deriding it.  Similarly, it would be nice if Republicans would work with Democrats on, to take the most recent example, Obama's overtime proposal, rather than reflexively deriding it.  Oh, well, one can dream....

[KodeBlue]

Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity? I'm not a Christian, I'm in a same sex marriage and I fail to see why some one else's religious beliefs should have any bearing on my life.
If you don't believe in same sex marriage don't marry some one of the same sex.

[arebelspy]

Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?

Because they tend to be the people against it.  There's not many non-religious arguments against it.

[Turkey Leg]

Maybe someone has mentioned this during this thread, but I missed it because, after reading this thread for a while, I decided I didn't want to read it any longer.

I am a Christian, and I think the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong. There is nothing in the Bible against gay marriage...nothing at all. There are several verses addressing the act of homosexual sex, but no verses in which God or Jesus condemns the joining in marriage of two women or two men.

I think those Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act. If they wait until the marriage ceremony to protest, they have likely missed several occurrences of what they consider sin.

But wait! Don't sinners marry all the time? Gossipers, liars, gluttonous people...they all marry, and there is no hue and cry from the Christian community about those people getting married, even though those sins are mentioned in the Bible. (Some ministers do, however, refuse to marry those they know to be actively, unrepentantly, committing some sort of sin.) Protesting the act of homosexual sex, to me, seems more in line with the verses often quoted from the Bible than protesting gay marriage.

It also seems to me this issue is similar to common "pro-choice" abortion arguments—there is a lack of understanding about the actual issue. The issue, I think, is that pro-life Christians get this main argument from pro-choice people: "It's the woman's right to choose!"

But those who argue this are missing the point entirely. They need to focus on convincing the pro-life Christians that life does NOT begin at conception, and, thus, abortion is not murder. Sure, anyone walking down the street can "choose" to murder someone, but everyone says that's wrong. If ending the life of a fetus/embryo/baby while inside the womb is not murder, then Christians, I assume, would be quite all right with a woman's right to choose. (And I'm not even going to get into being against abortion but being for capital punishment.)

Note I have not stated my personal opinions on gay marriage, homosexual sex, or abortion. I am stating what I have observed about the arguments and disagreements that I see occur in this forum, on TV, and during conversations.

[Gin1984]

Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?

Because they tend to be the people against it.  There's not many non-religious arguments against it.

Wait there is ANY?  Arebelspy, you have been holding out on us.

[Gin1984]

Maybe someone has mentioned this during this thread, but I missed it because, after reading this thread for a while, I decided I didn't want to read it any longer.

I am a Christian, and I think the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong. There is nothing in the Bible against gay marriage...nothing at all. There are several verses addressing the act of homosexual sex, but no verses in which God or Jesus condemns the joining in marriage of two women or two men.

I think those Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act. If they wait until the marriage ceremony to protest, they have likely missed several occurrences of what they consider sin.

But wait! Don't sinners marry all the time? Gossipers, liars, gluttonous people...they all marry, and there is no hue and cry from the Christian community about those people getting married, even though those sins are mentioned in the Bible. (Some ministers do, however, refuse to marry those they know to be actively, unrepentantly, committing some sort of sin.) Protesting the act of homosexual sex, to me, seems more in line with the verses often quoted from the Bible than protesting gay marriage.

It also seems to me this issue is similar to common "pro-choice" abortion arguments—there is a lack of understanding about the actual issue. The issue, I think, is that pro-life Christians get this main argument from pro-choice people: "It's the woman's right to choose!"

But those who argue this are missing the point entirely. They need to focus on convincing the pro-life Christians that life does NOT begin at conception, and, thus, abortion is not murder. Sure, anyone walking down the street can "choose" to murder someone, but everyone says that's wrong. If ending the life of a fetus/embryo/baby while inside the womb is not murder, then Christians, I assume, would be quite all right with a woman's right to choose. (And I'm not even going to get into being against abortion but being for capital punishment.)

Note I have not stated my personal opinions on gay marriage, homosexual sex, or abortion. I am stating what I have observed about the arguments and disagreements that I see occur in this forum, on TV, and during conversations.

We have tried and come up with same issues gay marriage activist get. "Well I don't believe it".  You can show that it was allowed by the Church up to a certain point.  You can show that prior to a certain point it has not CNS.  You can explain that we all have the right of autonomy and that if the government would not force you to give blood/marrow/organs (even as a corpse) to keep a living human alive, they should not require it from a woman with a fetus.  None of that seems to matter.  It boils down to, "My religion says what you are doing is icky so I am going to try to force my morals on you".  It has nothing to do with a lack of understand.

[arebelspy]

Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?

Because they tend to be the people against it.  There's not many non-religious arguments against it.

Wait there is ANY?  Arebelspy, you have been holding out on us.

None that I think are credible.  I mentioned the one I hear most often earlier in the thread (and some problems with it).  But I gave the benefit of the doubt that some non-religious ones exist, even if I disagree with them.

[johnny847]

Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?

Because they tend to be the people against it.  There's not many non-religious arguments against it.

Wait there is ANY?  Arebelspy, you have been holding out on us.

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

[sol]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery.  But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean.  If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it.  Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.

[Tyson]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery.  But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean.  If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it.  Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.

But I thought the constitution was written by God.  Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets?  We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?

[Sparafusile]

the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.

Thank you for that voice of reason, we all appreciate it.

Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.

Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.

[forummm]

But wait! Don't sinners marry all the time? Gossipers, liars, gluttonous people...they all marry, and there is no hue and cry from the Christian community about those people getting married, even though those sins are mentioned in the Bible. (Some ministers do, however, refuse to marry those they know to be actively, unrepentantly, committing some sort of sin.) Protesting the act of homosexual sex, to me, seems more in line with the verses often quoted from the Bible than protesting gay marriage.

I guess I'd be OK with respectful protests of "the act". But only if they first protest all the other things they have chosen to ignore (because they like to do them). Like heterosexual sodomy (oral sex is included), premarital sex, divorce, drunkenness, coveting, lying, not honoring parents, etc. Singling out one minority group and ignoring everything else the majority does smacks of hypocrisy and smells of bigotry.

How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

--Luke 6:42

[forummm]

Also

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

--Jesus in John 8:7

[davisgang90]

Also

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

--Jesus in John 8:7

One of my favorite verses.  Here's the rest:

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.  Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

[forummm]

I would also have bolded:

"Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus declared.

Which suggests that maybe the protesting itself (discussed above) would be wrong.

[tele25]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?

And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.

Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Perhaps not.

Consider this, what happened before the govt/religion stuck its nose in.

People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.

Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.

Also consider that if the govt can legislate for homosexual marriage what else can they do. Legalise marriage to your pet goat, a housebrick?

[GuitarStv]

Took a while for someone to compare a gay person to a goat or a 'housebrick' (sic), but we finally got there.

[Gin1984]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?

And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.

Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Perhaps not.

Consider this, what happened before the govt/religion stuck its nose in.

People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.

Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.

Also consider that if the govt can legislate for homosexual marriage what else can they do. Legalise marriage to your pet goat, a housebrick?

None of that is actually true.  And if you look at evolutionary psychology there is a benefit to villages in which there are adults without children. 
Also, you don't seem to understand the requirement for consent in marriage do you?
And btw, just because the majority did not have slave did not mean the majority was not pro-slavery.  I understand that if you are not from our country, you might not have a full breath of education in regards to our civil war but then you might not want to tell an American that their understand is incorrect.  Unless of course you have studied this academically and have citations to support your hypothesis that the civil war was not about slavery other than the absurd idea that because someone could not afford a slave means that they were not pro-slavery.

[forummm]

People in the South "benefitted" from slavery, even if they did not own slaves, because it made goods cheaper for them. And they may have had jobs overseeing slaves. And it gave them a class of people to feel superior to. When you're a poor, backwater, uneducated white person, you still have the slaves to look down on.

Plus, it's not the common person who sets policy in our country. It's the rich and powerful. The plantation owners in those days. Back then we didn't even have direct election of senators or the right for women to vote.

[Glenstache]

One of the things that has long puzzled me in the debate over same-sex marriage (SSM) is the idea that somehow granting marriage licenses would redefine marriage. The license is secular, and doesn't really change what the ceremony an individual couple would choose to do or how they would lead their shared lives. This has long struck me as one of the many instances of code language or use of phrasing to invoke another set of concepts discussed in social circles I am not actively involved in. A friend passed this article around earlier today, and while I do not think the thesis of the piece is universally applicable across those who oppose SSM, I think it illuminates a strong thread in the fabric of the debate and is worth a read. It makes a reasonable case for what is invoked the "redefinition" language beyond just face value text of the language.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/gay-marriage-scotus-ross-douthat-oppression-vs-love

Edit: I would really like to hear the feedback on this from those who oppose SSM. While the language of the article may be seen as confrontational, the concept of redefining roles within a marriage seems worthy of feedback.

[Bob W]

People in the South "benefitted" from slavery, even if they did not own slaves, because it made goods cheaper for them. And they may have had jobs overseeing slaves. And it gave them a class of people to feel superior to. When you're a poor, backwater, uneducated white person, you still have the slaves to look down on.

Plus, it's not the common person who sets policy in our country. It's the rich and powerful. The plantation owners in those days. Back then we didn't even have direct election of senators or the right for women to vote.

I think it is so interesting that in this discussion that gays are compared to blacks -- when the black population at large is like 80-90% opposed to gays and given the opportunity would vote them out of the country.   Makes for an interesting juxtaposition.   It is also interesting that a high percentage of blacks self identify as Baptist Christians.   

I also find the word "gay" to be a brilliant rebranding strategy.   

[Midwest]

People in the South "benefitted" from slavery, even if they did not own slaves, because it made goods cheaper for them. And they may have had jobs overseeing slaves. And it gave them a class of people to feel superior to. When you're a poor, backwater, uneducated white person, you still have the slaves to look down on.
.

People in the south benefited from slavery because they had a huge cotton export which required slaves.  Slaves were a huge part of their wealth.  http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-economics-of-slavery/

The majority of the country was racist at the time.  Doesn't it make it right, but insinuating that racism in the period existing only in the south is simply untrue.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Lincoln for example, had a plan to remove at least some slaves from the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

The bottom line is, the US at the time of the civil war was a racist country.  The south benefited economically from the unjust system of slavery and was thus much more reluctant to free slaves.  The north had a lot less to lose by ending slavery. 

[beltim]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?

And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.

Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?

No, it's pretty much true (they wanted some other slave-related rights too, like the ability to take their slaves with them when they traveled to states that outlawed slavery).  You should learn more history before lecturing people who have their facts correct.  Here's a good start: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/?hpid=z3

[TrulyStashin]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery.  But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean.  If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it.  Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.

But I thought the constitution was written by God.  Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets?  We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?

Maybe this is sarcasm...?   

No, legally speaking vis-a-vis the Constitution, we are NOT a Christian nation.  James Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention (available here:  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) contain almost no reference to God, religion or Christianity.  The only time the Founders discussed the topic was when they agreed to include Article VI which bans religious tests for those who might hold office.

Culturally, we may be a Christian nation, but legally we are secular.  That's a key distinction.

[Gin1984]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery.  But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean.  If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it.  Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.

But I thought the constitution was written by God.  Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets?  We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?

Maybe this is sarcasm...?   

No, legally speaking vis-a-vis the Constitution, we are NOT a Christian nation.  James Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention (available here:  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) contain almost no reference to God, religion or Christianity.  The only time the Founders discussed the topic was when they agreed to include Article VI which bans religious tests for those who might hold office.

Culturally, we may be a Christian nation, but legally we are secular.  That's a key distinction.

What was that treaty where a founding father specifically said that as the US was not a Christian nation they could be allied with a Muslim nation.  Ach, this is going to drive me nuts until I remember or someone takes pity on me.  :)