I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

[Don Corleone]

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman ". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link, and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!!

[HoreTore]

Hmmm... Why shouldn't gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?



btw, I'm actually quite relieved by this thread, looking at the title I thought it was about you having seen a doctor and found out that there was something wrong with your blood pump...

[Don Corleone]

Hmmm... Why should gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?

They weren't Methodist. They were Jewish. They just wanted to use the religious facility owned by the Methodists. And talk about Strawmen. Come on, Hore. You're going to have to do better than that...

[HoreTore]

They weren't Methodist. They were Jewish. They just wanted to use the religious facility owned by the Methodists. And talk about Strawmen. Come on, Hore. You're going to have to do better than that...

Yeah... I was talking more generally

But for this specific case, I give a big "Meh". And I question the sanity of everyone involved. Including the media.

[Husar]

Hmmm... Why shouldn't gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?

Because their faith states that God doesn't accept gays and that God never instated a democracy that would allow his followers to change the rules. May sound like rubbish to you but that's because you do not believe it.

[HoreTore]

Because their faith states that God doesn't accept gays and that God never instated a democracy that would allow his followers to change the rules. May sound like rubbish to you but that's because you do not believe it.

I'm pretty sure that gay christians don't believe that their god says that. Kinda like Luther didn't believe god wanted a pope. Christianity is changing every day, unless you haven't noticed it. So why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to preach their beliefs and try to convince others that their interpretation is the right one, like every other christian does?

[Odin]

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman ". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link, and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!!

I heard that piece this morning as well. My take on it was the inability of religions to tie homosexual union into conflict with the tenets of their religion. Then they would have the freedom of religion argument and they might actually be able to entrench around it. The homosexuals have take a tactical approach to ensuring their adgenda become part of the mainstream acceptance. I give them credit, and dont dispute your interpretation of the piece.

However, the religous have to stop fight along the lines of is it morally okay and ethical, and along the lines of freedom of religion if they want to win (or established an entrenched position that will hold in a court of law). I have been waiting for this tactic to be envoked, but alas to no avail yet, passion sometimes clouds tactical thinking.

[Fragony]

Sigh, another example of the mutual respect everyone must have for homosexuals

They can't see it, odd condition.

[Lemur]

Here's the "religious facility" which got its tax-exempt status revoked.

I think we've got a few religious facilities like that in my town. There's a burned-out shack by the lake that has the same air of religious worship about it ...

No doubt some ambitious people will invoke lawsuits over gay marriage. And I'm terribly sorry the Methodists lost their tax shelter on their falling-down seaside shanty, which they clearly don't have enough time, funding or reverence to slap with a proper coat of paint.

But hey man, this is America. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, and it doesn't mean they'll change the nature of religion. If this is the case that signals the legal death of heterosexual religion in the U.S.A., it's coming on small.

[Don Corleone]

Here's the "religious facility" which got its tax-exempt status revoked.

I think we've got a few religious facilities like that in my town. There's a burned-out shack by the lake that has the same air of religious worship about it ...

No doubt some ambitious people will invoke lawsuits over gay marriage. And I'm terribly sorry the Methodists lost their tax shelter on their falling-down seaside shanty, which they clearly don't have enough time, funding or reverence to slap with a proper coat of paint.

But hey man, this is America. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, and it doesn't mean they'll change the nature of religion. If this is the case that signals the legal death of heterosexual religion in the U.S.A., it's coming on small.

You don't realize it Lemur, but you're making my case for me. The building didn't lose it's tax exempt status, the religious body that owns it did. And apparently you've never been to the Jersey shore. That's an open pavillion on a boardwalk, not a dilapidated shack. They run for hundreds of thousands of dollars, due to the location.

But hey, if that's the best you can come up with, and you're forced to completely sidestep the issue, I guess I'll just have to repeat:

I TOLD YOU SO!!!

[Don Corleone]

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine.

[Lemur]

You don't realize it Lemur, but you're making my case for me. The building didn't lose it's tax exempt status, the religious body that owns it did.

ORLY?

The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area.

[Adrian II]

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

I haven't studied any of the cases. But if you look closely at some of the examples, they appear not to be clear cut and dried at all.

In the Massachusetss case for example, the Catholic Charities of Boston operate on a license granted by the State of Massachusetts on condition that they respect the law of the land with regard to adoption. If they break the law, out goes the license.

And it's not the Charities that protested either, just a couple of Bishops. In December of 2005 the 42-member board of the Catholic Charities of Boston, having heard the Bishops, voted unanimously in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Bishops lost their case in court, too.

[Fragony]

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

Or why not start a church of theirselves, maybe an idea but I don't think that ever crossed their minds, rent a shed of your own and praise the gaylord and see if you get zapped if not bang on. This annoys me to no end, they say they want to be accepted as equal because it's just their sexual preferation, but in the end it always becomes their sexual preferation that defines them and everything should move aside. So very very disrespectful. If these people care for that rundown little shack what's it to them, why keep insisting just because someone said no. Only small children can't take no for an answer, I want it I want it what they want is all that's on their mind at that point.

[Adrian II]

Or why not start a church of theirselves, maybe an idea but I don't think that ever crossed their minds, rent a shed of your own and praise the gaylord and see if you get zapped if not bang on.

The usual rant, eh?

Now, did you read what I posted? Did you read up on the cases Don referred to? Did you get the point of what these cases are about? They are borderline cases, issues on the legal borderline where public order and public interest meet personal convictions and private interests. It has always been that way. That line is drawn and redrawn all the time.

And do you really think religious adoption services should operate according to their own principles, without regard for the law? Would you like Scientology to start adopting kids according to their principles? Hm?

Thought so.

[Don Corleone]

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

I haven't studied any of the cases. But if you look closely at some of the examples, they appear not to be clear cut and dried at all.

In the Massachusetss case for example, the Catholic Charities of Boston operate on a license granted by the State of Massachusetts on condition that they respect the law of the land with regard to adoption. If they break the law, out goes the license.

And it's not the Charities that protested either, just a couple of Bishops. In December of 2005 the 42-member board of the Catholic Charities of Boston, having heard the Bishops, voted unanimously in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Bishops lost their case in court, too.

Right, nobody has issued any edicts stating that religions that do not embrace homosexuality will be outlawed. Right now, it's a few fringe cases.

My point was not to ring a gong of alarmism. It wasn't to discuss degree or extent. It wasn't to villify homosexuals at large.

It was simply a retort to those who've called me a paranoid nutjob over the years. There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society. For lack of a better term, I call these folks the Lambda crowd (after the Lambda Legal Advocacy crowd). Whenever I've raised concerns that they would use the legalization of gay marriage as a wedge to force religions to practice weddings outside the accords of their religious tenets, I've been ridiculed. And according to a relatively left-leaning source like NPR, it turns out I was spot on.

Now Lemur, you are right, I was wrong, I misread the article. The tax exemption was on the pavillion itself. So your point is that using the courts to force people to alter their religious beliefs is okay as long as the courts restrict themselves to the tax exempt status of the buildings themselves?

[Lemur]

So your point is that using the courts to force people to alter their religious beliefs is okay as long as the courts restrict themselves to the tax exempt status of the buildings themselves?

No, I was headed more or less where Adrian II went, although I was lumbering there in a much more clumsy fashion. I think this is a borderline case, and not indicative of a larger assault on organized religion.

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

[Fragony]

There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society.

This. Why should I respect someone who doesn't respect anything? Same with blitzbeards.

ps, not so small a minority I think.

[Adrian II]

Don, I got your point the first time round, no mistake there.

There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society.

Don't we all have such minorities? Blacks, Jews, feminists, Catholics, Protestants, leftwing and rightwing extremists, Army veterans, all have vocal minorities that push their agenda on behalf of the so-called 'majority' they claim to represent. It's lobbying business as usual.

The funniest thing is not that the ladies would have had no complaints if they had been refused on the ground that they were Jewish. The funniest thing is in that case they might have had the JDL, B'nai Brith and Alan Dershowitz backing them...

[woad&fangs]

Whenever I've raised concerns that they would use the legalization of gay marriage as a wedge to force religions to practice weddings outside the accords of their religious tenets, I've been ridiculed. And according to a relatively left-leaning source like NPR, it turns out I was spot on.

I'm not yet entirely sure of how to react to the article. On one side, I believe your "I told you so" is a bit premature as no ministers are being forced to perform the actual wedding ceremony. On the other hand, the couple is pretty clearly violating the first amendment rights of the church. Also, complaining that a Christian group doesn't accept you as a homosexual is stupid and pathetic. So, upon further thought, I believe the courts were wrong in this case. They should have sided with the Methodists.

[Andres]

I couldn't care less about what would be the legal term for marriage. As far as I'm concerned they can replace the word "marriage" with "orange juice".

Anyway, why are the media even paying attention to this? Is this stuff really newsworthy?

I don't understand these people. You are a [insert term for member of a certain religion] and you want to marry your gay friend. [insert said religion] doesn't allow gay marriage. You have two options: a) accept and don't marry your gay friend; b) leave [insert said religion] in disgust. Nobody prevents you from starting your own religion which allows gay marriage. You can even call it "The Correct [insert said religion]", as far as I'm concerned.

[Adrian II]

Some members are confusing issues again.

1. Don is not complaining that gays want to change their religion of choice. He is complaining that gays are attempting to change religions from the outside, through the courts. Whether that is actually happening, and whether it is good thing or not, is debatable.

2. Marriage is not a private contract. Under the law, marriage is a privileged status (legal, fiscal, etcetera) granted by the state to couples with an eye to conceiving and raising children in a safe atmosphere. The mot important privilege is not fiscal, but legal: spouses automatically become next of kin which is an essential prerequisite to the continuity of their childrens' education. So marriage is a contract between two people and the state (acting on behalf of the community) and the couple must meet certain conditions that vary from country to country, in return for wich the state undertakes said obligations which also vary from country to country. But the principle is the same everywhere. The whole issue of gay marriage hinges on the question of whether gays can and should raise children.

3. Religious marriage is private business.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't think i have understood this issue fullly before but here is an attempt....

The main point of contention for gays getting married is not that religion grants marriage, no religion controls it, the goverment controls marriage, so people don't want the goverment to allow gay marriage, but this just seems discriminatory to me, we have laws against incest and polygamy so thats why they can't get married but as we have no laws against being gay why isn't gay marriage allowed ?

Of course no religion or church should be forced to marry them, but if they can find someone and somewhere where thier welcome whats everyone else's problem that thier union has the same name as yours..... it can't be half as insulting to the institution of marriage as some of the stuff straight couples do

[Lemur]

Actually, this particular case has to do with a Jewish couple that wanted to get married in a Methodist pavilion on the New Jersey boardwalk, but the Methodists said no, and somehow this violated some New Jersey statute or another, and I guess the Methodists were doign something state-related to get their tax break on the pavilion, and somehow the Jewish lesbians sued for the pavilion to lose its tax-exempt status and they won. So now the lesbians are married, I guess, and the Methodist church has lost its tax shelter on a falling-down little structure for no obvious reason.

I don't see why anyone finds this confusing.

[Don Corleone]

It's simpler than that. From now on, regardless of what your religion teaches, you will marry homosexuals , or you will lose your tax-exempt status. Should that fail to work, further 're-education' strategies will be initiated.

[Goofball]

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman ". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link, and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!!

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so what I am about to say has probably already been said by those smarter than I, because it's so blatantly obvious that I am, quite frankly Don, surprised you even had the balls to start this thread:

This is clearly not an example of a gay couple trying to force a church to marry them, which is the matter that you and I have argued many times in the past.

This is an example of a gay couple who wanted to use a facility (not even a church, at that) to perform their civil union, and they were discriminated against because the owners of the facility in question happen to disagree with gay marriage. Quite funny, since the couple in question are not even asking to be "married" in the facility in question.

So Don, to use your words, not mine: "Hogwash. You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman. "

Have a nice day.