RR E2 Prop 8, gay rights vs. religious freedom

My rather emotional plea for sanity in this insane world surrounding the gay marriage debate.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Rational
• Roundtable
• theist
• atheist
• theism
• atheism
• proposition
• gay
• rights
• religious
• freedom

[Clemburke1111]

How do you feel about prop 8 about to be overturned?

[RationalRoundtable]

@Clemburke1111

Well, honestly I do not think it will solve the core issue. Californians can do as they please, but I think that my solution would work better in the long run.

[Clemburke1111]

@RationalRoundtable Well, I am a gay man and a firefighter and served in the AF, My Partner is a Pilot for Delta and alos served inthe AF together we have two children and live in Boston and are married. How does it effect you.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Clemburke1111

the question is not about how it affects me personally... some of us can separate the term marriage from our theological beliefs, some of us see no conflict to begin with however some have a big problem. My solution is not about placating to any on group rather to resolve the issue in a way that works for all.

[TheRedneckAtheist]

The state should stay the hell out of the church and the church should stay the hell out of the state.

If a church pays for political advertisements then it should also get to pay taxes.

[OccamKant]

@RationalRoundtable I don't see why having the word "marriage" used by the state is in any way interfering with your religious freedom.

I agree that the state shouldn't be allowed to force a given church to perform a ceremony that is against it's dogma - a catholic church performing gay marriage for example, but gays should be able to get married in a gay friendly church, or in a courtroom, or on a ship, and still call it "marriage".

[RuinSonic]

@JustAnotherMutant I don't think it would exclude homosexuals. I'm going to have to disagree with RRT that it infringes on people's religious freedom if the government is involved in marriage. If it were the case then almost everyone's religious freedom has been violated at some point by the government since abortion, capital punishment, and education promote a view that some people's religious view would support and others would deny.

[JustAnotherMutant]

(cont) homosexuals to be married. The state would have nothing to say about it, any more than they have a say about other religious statuses, for example when Mormons men gain the priesthood, or who can receive the Catholic sacrament of confirmation.

Likewise, religions would have no say in each other's practices, any more than Catholics can determine the baptismal age for Quakers.

[JustAnotherMutant]

RuinSonic, I am not trying to imply that it is or was exclusively a religious institution. I agree that a religious culture practicing marriage within their culture would be a civil institution. It has been done within religions though, and in those times and places, it was a religious institution... and in many it was both a religious and civil institution.

Why would you think that making marriage a religious term would exclude homosexuals? As a religious term, any religion could declare

[RuinSonic]

@JustAnotherMutant RRT has a good solution, but not many people want it. However, I remain unconvinced that marriage is a religious ceremony. The fact that ancient cultures who established marriage traditions were religious doesn't give any grounds for saying it's a religious ceremony. Ancient Greece didn't even have a ceremony, just a contract of commitment. Marriage is a human creation which is why there's no reason gays cannot be added to the creation and religions separate.

[JustAnotherMutant]

I don't agree that marriage is inherently religious, as it has both long term religious and secular usage. However I have still considered this as a good potential solution on the marriage issue.

On the civil side, domestic partnership & civil union make sense for naming, but don't for religions, so I also felt that religions ending up with the word marriage would be the best solution.

[RuinSonic]

@RationalRoundtable "My solution is not about placating to any on group rather to resolve the issue in a way that works for all."

The whole issue is symbolism though. For instance if we singled out black people and said they have a "Wmarriage" instead of a marriage it would be an offense to them as if they have to be singled out even if their rights and ceremony and everything else were the same.

Please explain how marriage is inherently religious even if it did come from a religion?

[RuinSonic]

@RationalRoundtable I kind of disagree with your premise. I think the government is legislating morality all the time and morality is deeply involved with most religions. Based on your interpretation it seems like the government is violating religious rights all the time.

Here's the problem. It sounds a lot like separate but equal in that we are just going to change the rules just to appease injustice. On the other side religious people won't want to change tradition for appeasement.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Clemburke1111

For the record, I do NOT support tax free status for religious groups (or any other group for that matter)

[Clemburke1111]

@RationalRoundtable Look, we give the churches freedoms that no onther groups has in America including Tax free Land and Buildings and they are a protected class, Its rediculous to give in to one more item,,simply ridiculous. They are like spoild babies.