gay marriage

[fatherphil]

i assumed the goal of the homosexual community in the issue of marriage was to get one's respective government to recognize their legal right to same sex marriage. a church santion is not much use if its still is not recognized as a legal and state sanctioned contract.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i assumed the goal of the homosexual community in the issue of marriage was to get one's respective government to recognize their legal right to same sex marriage. a church santion is not much use if its still is not recognized as a legal and state sanctioned contract.

I don't see your point. The political opposition to legal status is primarily religious. You asked about strategies; I've explained one that would undermine the religious opposition's claim to be pressing religious rights and interests in denying the legal right to marry.

[fatherphil]

i wonder sometimes if a society uses religion to justify persecution of a practice they hate regardless of religious mores. the Christians do not have the corner on the "don't let gays marry" market.

but to get the Christian political machine to support gay marriage as an equal rights issue will be the best shot at getting it to pass in the united states.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i wonder sometimes if a society uses religion to justify persecution of a practice they hate regardless of religious mores.

"sometimes"?

the Christians do not have the corner on the "don't let gays marry" market.

Of course not. There's Islam and Judaism, too.

But seriously. They don't have the market cornered, no. But factor out the religiously-justified opposition and the remaining opposition is trivial. Taking aim at religious opposition is not just a good strategy -- it's the right diagnosis.

[fatherphil]

so what do you mean by aim? i think that Christians are your best bet because you can use the example of Christ's actions in His day as one which His followers should follow. dignity usa does not follow that example in the sense that they attempt to rewrite scripture rather than follow it through. to not concede something as a sin is a much harder sell than just trying to get allowances for that sin.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

so what do you mean by aim?

What are you confused about? Maybe my wording was unclear. Instead of "taking aim at religious opposition" substitute "working to neutralize religious opposition to same-sex marriage". Does that help?

i think that Christians are your best bet because you can use the example of Christ's actions in His day as one which His followers should follow. dignity usa does not follow that example in the sense that they attempt to rewrite scripture rather than follow it through. to not concede something as a sin is a much harder sell than just trying to get allowances for that sin.

Okay. I don't see this as relevant to my point, and, relevance aside, I don't enough about Dignity USA to know whether your claims are true or false.

[fatherphil]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

What are you confused about? Maybe my wording was unclear. Instead of "taking aim at religious opposition" substitute "working to neutralize religious opposition to same-sex marriage". Does that help?

your better bet is to get them on your side. you certainly can't deny them the vote and the supreme court may never have the guts to do the dirty work. i've just seen too many shots taken at Christians and the only thing that does is make people more defensive.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i assumed the goal of the homosexual community in the issue of marriage was to get one's respective government to recognize their legal right to same sex marriage. a church santion is not much use if its still is not recognized as a legal and state sanctioned contract.

The homosexual community is not a community of people with shared social goals, but a community of people with shared sexual inclinations... They are no more unified on political questions than everyone else.

Religious people tend to care most about the religious aspects of marriage.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

[
your better bet is to get them on your side. you certainly can't deny them the vote and the supreme court may never have the guts to do the dirty work. i've just seen too many shots taken at Christians and the only thing that does is make people more defensive.

The Christians are the ones leading the anti-gay marriage movement, of course any "shots" are taken at them. They are imposing their religious beliefs on all of us.. How on Earth are we supposed to get them "on our side"?

[Beth]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How on Earth are we supposed to get them "on our side"?

I wonder this as well.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Christians are the ones leading the anti-gay marriage movement, of course any "shots" are taken at them. They are imposing their religious beliefs on all of us.. How on Earth are we supposed to get them "on our side"?

Point out their errors in terms of their own foundational beliefs.

[fatherphil]

use the teachings of their leader, Christ, to show them the error in their political practices. read the gospels, it should be short work for such an educated group.

[Ari]

Trying to change christians minds may work, however if you go through history you will notice most prejudice is beat through force. Often legal force. I think focus should be put on trying to show anti-gay as a prejudice and being gay should be protected just like being black or being a women, if it were illegal to deny someone something just because they are gay, then it would be much easier for gays to marry.

I doubt repealing segregation laws was very popular. But when the world didn't explode, and people started growing up in mixed towns, the prejudice started to vanish.

I think when it comes to many prejudice people, they are solidly set in their beliefs. They can't just be told it's wrong, they need to be shown.

Along those lines, I'm surprised at the lack of civil rights type protests/demonstrations or the lack of coverage.

[PinkRose]

i think civil union is appropriate, marriage for some reason is not normal considering from the start marriage was identified as between man & woman. icy leave it that way and let the gays do their thing. its just taking awhile being figured out as to what should be what? heterosexuals marry and homosexuals unionize?

[fatherphil]

relying on force is a doomed proposition unless gay can figure out how to multiply their trait of gayness. and if that were possible the straight's concerns would be validated.

as far as union vs. marriage, nobody likes second rate institutions. we got the mechanism in place to give the rights they want. lets use it. really, what value is there in the word marriage anyway. given the 50% divorce rate, i'd say not much.

[Ari]

Remember I said legal force, not physical. You don't need to be gay to understand why prejudice is wrong. It's the idea that needs to be multiplied.


Union vs Marriage.
It's not just a word but a symbol.
A test. Go up to a black person (or yourself if the case may be) and tell them if they would be happy being called a "resident" instead of a "citizen." Residents have all the rights as a citizen but the term citizen is only for white people. How do you think they would respond?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

read the gospels, it should be short work for such an educated group.

Ah, but "taking shots" is counterproductive.

Golly, is there anything about hypocrisy in the gospels? If only I could ever get around to reading them, what with all my education...

[PinkRose]

resident and citizen are the same, race is all humans, heterosexuals then have anal sex only? can a man produce a baby inside his body?

[livius drusus]

What does being able to have a baby have to do with anything? Should it be against the law for infertile couples to get married? And what's with your obsession with anal sex? Plenty of gay men and many, many lesbians don't have anal sex, and even if they do, why is that remotely relevant to marriage?

[Ari]

You obviously didn't read my post (or are just screwing around ) since I never said anything about "race" but specifically about skin color.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by PinkRose

resident and citizen are the same, race is all humans, heterosexuals then have anal sex only? can a man produce a baby inside his body?

Besides being a series of English words, I have no idea what this is.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i assumed the goal of the homosexual community in the issue of marriage was to get one's respective government to recognize their legal right to same sex marriage. a church santion is not much use if its still is not recognized as a legal and state sanctioned contract.

So can you understand the hub bub now, bub, since that was exactly what I pointed out in my post?

i wonder sometimes if a society uses religion to justify persecution of a practice they hate regardless of religious mores. the Christians do not have the corner on the "don't let gays marry" market.

No, they don't, but in countries where they also don't have those freedoms, they're likely to be thrown in jail if they even reveal they are homosexual. They have the freedom to campaign for marriage here, and in the US, which are predominantly Christian countries, who are using forms of Christianity (rational and sound or otherwise) to prevent them.

dignity usa does not follow that example in the sense that they attempt to rewrite scripture rather than follow it through.

And where was it in the four gospels you so encourage us to read that Jesus said, "Damn, I hate them fags. They shouldn't be allowed to marry."?

to not concede something as a sin is a much harder sell than just trying to get allowances for that sin.

So, when was the last time you ate some prawns, fatherphil? Because if anal sex is a sin, so is that. How many allowances do Christians make for non-Kosher food, which is on the same level of "sin" as having sex with your wife when she's menstrating, and being a male and having anal sex with a male?

If a sin is pointless in society, it is ignored and accepted as normal, especially if it's based on flawed logic (or misogyny). Biblical morality is as mutable as any non-absolute morality, phil, as the examples I have stated above show.

If anybody is trying to re-write scripture, it is the ignorant masses with no knowledge of the Hewbrew context for the Bible they abuse.

to not concede something as a sin is a much harder sell than just trying to get allowances for that sin.

If the straights don't appreciate the rights they have, they should give them to people who will appreciate them . They've had their chance. Let the gays have a go.

[seebs]

If my state ever offers civil unions to some people and marriages to others, my spouse and I will divorce and get a civil union. I think it's very sweet and romantic that we had this idea independently.

[PinkRose]

gay & marriage to me is anal period. if it is not accepted here go to where it is and stop shoving it down my throat? there are more regular people than gay, but gay is in, so everyone is trying it? an odditiy once now popular the women don't bother me its the men i cannot figure out?

[Beth]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

use the teachings of their leader, Christ, to show them the error in their political practices. read the gospels, it should be short work for such an educated group.

I have and still do. Funny, I seem to know more of the bible than even my husband. Thing is, when I argue from the Bible, it does not seem to go over too well. Instead I've had to argue from the point that this nation is a secular government. I try to use Early American and European history to show the downfalls of religious ideals being intertwined into government. I also then make a plea from a secular human rights standpoint.

Only when the scriptures are raised as a basis to deny gay marriage do I use the Bible to try to defend it. See, using the Bible as the basis of my argument is often seen as hostile. I also do not think it is fair to expect people to study scripture. - especially those who feel oppressed and downtrodden by a religious group or who have had scriptures levied against them as justification for bigotry.


Did people not want to grant civil rights to the blacks? Did they not believe that they had a god-given right to segregate? I do not know many old timers down here that really likes the new way of blacks having equal rights, they still bitch and moan about it. But people fought the establishment. It was a long process and I think that the gay community will eventually win their right to marry without having to kiss the church's ass.

There are merits to your discussion, but I feel it is the job of Christians (both straight and gay) who believe as you do to seek reform within the church. Not the non-believers (straight and gay). Let the non-believers argue on the secular front and fight and lobby to change discriminatory laws. Since both groups are on the same side, they should work side by side- just in different plattforms.