The hypocracy behind Gay Marriage

[Ducimus]

This is just my opinion that I wanted to get off my chest, but before i get into it, i wanted to formally preface this. (and yes this is all brought about from the latest news about gay marriage in Utah and the pending litigation )

Preface:
Change of opinion - which for me is very rare
My opinion about a great many things has changed during 2013. So much so, I could probably write an essay on that alone. It's amazing what one political group going after one of your constitutional rights will do to change one's opinion about a great many things, but I digress.

Religion in general - I'm still not a big fan.
The problem I have with religion in general, is when it's forced upon me. Don't force me to believe as you do, and we'll be fine. Now that said, living where I do, marrying into a Mormon family, I find that I have grown much more tolerant of religion. Moving from California to Utah (polar opposites in terms of politics and societal outlook), I have learned two things:

a.) Religion has its place in society as it promotes civility. Some people need it, some don't. Regardless if one needs it or not, it exists as a guiding principle for many people, and helps shape civility into society.

b.) It's the evangelical types I have my issues with due to their intolerance of other peoples beliefs. Evangelicals aside I have discovered mutal respect of beliefs. When I go to a friend of family member's house who is active in church, I abide by their rules and customs. When they come to my house, they do the same. It's not asked of, it's just done. Live and let live, a rather novel concept.


Preface aside,
- I am still all for the separation of church and state. Or rather, the separation of church from state. I view matters of church and state as mutally exclusive.

- I still don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedroom or their personal lives regardless of sexual orientation. What you do in your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is none of my business.

But here's the rub,
Like many of the lefty progressive types, I am for the separation of church and state, though I say this with the reservation and acknowledgement that predominate local beliefs (liberal or conservative) will effect local politics. However, By and large separation of church and state is something that they will argue vehemently for; and they will often cite the same reasons I have. Don't force your beliefs on me.

And yet, that is exactly what they are doing. Forcing their beliefs upon others. They argue for the removal of church from state, and yet the existence of the state in the church is ok in their view, in essence creating a double standard. At it's core, marriage, is a religious ceremony. All religion is voluntary. If a particular religious denomination is ok with gay marriage, fine. Get married, I hope your happy. But if a denomination is not ok with it, forcing your view upon any religious denomination is just as wrong as evangelical types forcing their views upon you. In sum, you become no better then that which you've despised, claiming the moral high ground, and yet doing the exact same thing you hate having done to you. In short, it's hypocritical.

Just expressing my opinion for hell of it. I don't expect anyone to agree with it.

[Tango589]

Actually Duce, I do agree. I'm all for living in peace and tolerance and people shoving their beliefs and opinions onto others gets my goat. If you want a gay marriage, you can get it in a registry office (or the US equivalent). Then you can probably ask your local church/temple/mosque/synagogue to have a blessing for you. If they still refuse, they may well not be the kind of people to look on a same-sex couple favourably anyway.

That's my 2 cents spent.

[Sailor Steve]

Fair enough, and well enough said.

The following is a straight-up answer, not a rebuttal, since this isn't an argument. Just my opinion.

Religion in general: Contrary to what some would have us believe, the American system of separation actually works pretty well. Yes, there are people who would use the Government to promote their beliefs, and they need to be watched, but they are watched, and for the most part their efforts generate more alarm than actual harm. Most run-of-the-mill believers are reasonably tolerant, but then it can be questioned how strongly most of them actually believe in the first place.
a) Yes, religion can promote civility. It depends on what the group holds as a tenant. Religion has also been used to promote just about every evil imaginable. It depends on what the people in charge can convince their followers of, for good or evil. I would add that it's my belief that the good ones far outweigh the bad. You just don't hear about them as much.

b) Evangelists are fine. I don't like them getting in my face either, but having been one I can understand that if you believe there is only one way to survive an afterlife then you also feel the need to tell as many people about it as you can. I don't mind - I like talking to people about pretty much anything.

At it's core, marriage, is a religious ceremony.

This is where I disagree. Marriage was created as a civil function, with a specific purpose. Religion got into it later. The problem is the civil side. What most of the protests have been about is the laws that forbid it. Those laws are now changing, which I believe is the right thing.

I do agree with you that if a gay rights group (or any other group) tries to force a major religion to change their bylaws it could be construed as forcing their beliefs on others. The question is when does it become hypocrisy? Right after I moved to Utah the Mormon Church changed its rules on Black members holding the Priesthood (I had nothing to do with that, being neither black nor Mormon). Were black members hypocritical to push for that? I don't know the answer to that, and I don't even have an opinion, but here is the same thing. Are Gays being hypocritical trying to change religious groups to accept them, even when their most cherished Scriptures call gay sex "an abomination"? Again I don't know, but the question is a good one to discuss.

And that's my opinion.

At it's core, marriage, is a religious ceremony

Marriage exists without religion, religion exists without marriage.
Its a business agreement at its core, always has been and always will be.
Haplo previously kindly provided a link to "prove" marriage is a religious institution, he instead proved that the early church moved into a role that was already a function of the state.

[the_tyrant]

why dont we completely separate marriage and law

Legally, there should only be one kind of recognized relationship, the civil union. Marriage is a subset of the civil union, and has no legal meaning.

If you want to get married, go to the courthouse and obtain a civil union, and then go to a church/temple/swingers club, etc for the ceremony.

If your church does not offer you marriage, its their choice. But legally, marriage shouldn't mean anything

[Ducimus]

Marriage was created as a civil function, with a specific purpose. Religion got into it later.

Any supporting evidence for that? I know it's easy to make the assumption that long before any religion was thought of, a tribal cheiftan said, Caveman A and Cavewoman B were officially zug zug to their tribe; but as near as i can tell, marriage in any account of human history I'm aware of, was conducted by a holy man of one sort or another.

The problem is the civil side. What most of the protests have been about is the laws that forbid it.

I think marriage consists of two parts. The religious side, and the civil side. If im not mistaken, even with Amendment 3 to Utah's constitution, Gays could get civil unions here. IMO, that's fine, anyone should be allowed a civil union, were should all be the same with equal rights and protections as the state goes.

The religious aspect however, i think is entirely voluntary. In fact, i think an argument could be made that it is entirely unnecessary. As such, I think forcing the issue into the religious area can't really be described in a positive context.

Right after I moved to Utah the Mormon Church changed its rules on Black members holding the Priesthood (I had nothing to do with that, being neither black nor Mormon). Were black members hypocritical to push for that? I don't know the answer to that, and I don't even have an opinion, but here is the same thing.

I don't see how matters of race or color have any bearing or relevance to gay marriage. I think such comparisons are just abstractions designed to garner favorable opinions by invoking images of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks; something we can all agree with. However, Gay people were never slaves, major highlights of the civil war, subject to Jim Crow laws, cross burnings, and the like. So I don't think that comparison fair in this particular subject. I think this subject more about forcing an alteration of religious beliefs. Beliefs that are voluntary and optional in life, and forcing these changes in the Church via the State; which i think is wrong at a fundamental level. I don't think this an issue of civil or constitutional rights. Especially when civil unions are already available.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think this subject more about forcing an alteration of religious beliefs. Beliefs that are voluntary and optional in life, and forcing these changes in the Church via the State; which i think is wrong at a fundamental level. I don't think this an issue of civil or constitutional rights. Especially when civil unions are already available.

I really don't think so.

The basic idea of the DOMA finding was that it's not right to deny federal benefits to people based on their sexual orientation. Couldn't have less to do with religion. It's only civil and constitutional.

[Wolferz]

Hypocrits of every stripe...

Pity that they'll never see that the word belief can't be spelled without the "lie" in the middle of it.

[Skybird]

Before any legal regulations and religion, people formed family tribes and later: parent-couple, because it payed off to do so, it made sense in the daily fight for survival, it helped to have tribe members specialize in works that they could do best and were best suited for, ad doing that kind of specialization, as every economist should know, helps to increase the positive net effect for all participants in that system. From the family tribes it went to the more intimate social core cell some time later, the basic family: mother-father-kid(s), often several generations of such family constellations stayed together in one band. When this stage was initially reached, legal rules and religion still had nothing to do with it yet. All that came later.

As I often said, gay marriage is a left political project that helps to attack and destroy the basic bastion of the much-hated burgeoise society, the family, bey stripping it off its privileged, protected status. Its is principle Marx being followed here. Marx said: destroy the family, then the moral and social integrity erodes and collapses and the vacuum can be replaced with communist collectivism. And Lenin said: destroy the currency, then the economy falls, and with the abandoning of private property and individual rights we can proclaim the all-mightiness of the state that already Rousseau had demanded.

There is nothing, no function, no merit, no service, that justifies special credit and recognition being given to singles living singles,. tow men or two women living together. Nothing of interest and social/cultural importance lies in this. It is no virtue and nothing remarkable to be gay. From standpoint of communal and social and cultural interests, it holds nothing of interest for the community or the state or the environment. It is not more important than the circumstance that two days ago I squeezed a pimple in my neck.

But currently there is a huge campaign ravaging in the Western media, how athletes should and could and would make statements in Sotchi about gay rights. As if that is the purpose of an athlete going to an Olympic competition: to protest for gay rights. As if he would have any obligation to do so. Its a complete hijack what is being done here. there and at so many other sport events, too, now. Who sais gays are supressed? They have there interests rubbed down everybody's throat at almost every major publicity event these days. Many people even agree with the need to implement homosexual quotas in business and job environments. It seems that homosexuality really qualifies you for higher social honors these days. It makes you the better human amongst humans.

Two days ago, a former member of the German national football team said he were gay, and that he wanted... and intended... and blah and blah and blah... As if anyone should need to know it, and should need to care about his private life. Okay, you are gay and live with a man. Fine. No need for me to form any opinion about that. Nevertheless, this totally unimportant private matter gets debates up and down the whole federal republic, and makes the headlines in every major print media. Oh dear. He has not brought peace to the Middle East. He did not defeat poverty in Africa, nor did he solve the fiat money crisis, and last time I checked he also has not found a cure to Ebola. But look how important it is that we all know there is somebody who is gay, and how many compliments he gets because he let everybody know his preferences and made sure that nobody could escape to take note of the media mumbo jumbo about the really important thing that there he is and is gay.

The world is save! And our country is so much more enriched!

Infantilization is the supreme road to chose if you want to reach hell, it seems to me. Destroys people's minds and clear thought better than any war could ever achieve.

[Tchocky]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[Armistead]

Marriage has evolved, but for most of our history stems from a political process that shared power with the church or religion, while it was put away with, the religious residue remains. We have too many needed laws to protect people to make it a solely religious matter and too many people that hold marriage itself as a religious institution. We can't really separate it and I don't see a future of two ceremonies.

I think by denying gay marriage in favor or civil unions the government is denying people religious rights, so I have no problem with gay marriage. To have separate terms for one group does deny them the religious cultural aspect of marriage.

However, I also understand the need to define marriage, do we allow polygamy, etc., with all our legal laws, we do have to draw a line. I guess for me the lines would be the legal aspects, not the religious. I think the balance is marriage is for two people and leave it at that.

For me, I'm against gay marriage, so I didn't marry a gay person. I also hate the radical promotion by any group, gay or religious. Not sure what a norm is, fact is I turned the channel during the day and saw two men kissing on some soap and it turned my stomach....but can admit had it been two women, it would've turned me on, so I guess it's perspective.

My wish would be this debate could be put aside and everyone get their rights and be happy and all the promotion for political purposes or indoctrinating our childrens minds would go away.....but ain't gonna happen.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Any supporting evidence for that?

Several ancient Greek writers speak of marriage as an assigned state duty, the sole purpose of which was to raise children. Neither love nor religion entered into the picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_marriage_law

I don't see how matters of race or color have any bearing or relevance to gay marriage.

Then you need to study your Mormon history. The custom of blacks not being able to hold the priesthood was probably at its root because of contemporary racism, but the official reason was that blackness was the mark God put on Cain, and again the punishment of Ham for exposing his father Noah's nakedness. The real cause may have been secular, but the stated official cause was entirely religious. The stance against gay marriage is also stated to be religious, i.e. scriptural. The real reason? I don't know, but the official reason is exactly the same.

I think this subject more about forcing an alteration of religious beliefs.

As was the subject of Mormon Priesthood, hence my original comment.

Beliefs that are voluntary and optional in life, and forcing these changes in the Church via the State; which i think is wrong at a fundamental level.

I completely agree here. Using the state to force a change in the church is decidedly unconstitutional. I was talking about trying to convince the church itself to change on its own.

There are cases on the dockets involving gay couples bringing lawsuits to attempt to force churches to marry them. I certainly agree in the belief that this is wrong.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

There are cases on the dockets involving gay couples bringing lawsuits to attempt to force churches to marry them.

Do you have a link for any specific cases? I haven't heard about any such cases, and I'd be curious to see it.

If someone is trying to force a church to perform a ceremony that's against their religion, it should get thrown out of court. I wouldn't expect a Catholic church to perform a gay wedding any more than I'd expect them to perform a Jewish ceremony. If someone is actually pursuing legal action, I think it would create such a backlash that it would damage whatever cause they think they're fighting for.

[Armistead]

I recall seeing on the news last year some gay groups trying to use the legal system to force churches to marry them, stop the anti-gay speech. Seems the gay group was saying if a church welcomes the public then hate speech laws apply, but seems a judge threw it out stating "religious freedom of speech". Think groups in the future as laws evolve will try to force churches that state they're open to the public to comply with all public laws..

[Onkel Neal]

PSA from SUBSIM

Ok, I'm not here to highjack this thread, so please read this and continue on topic. Hey, this could be a contentious issue, but it is topical and people should feel free to discuss it. At some point, someone may post something you feel is silly, provacative, or tempting to an abusive remark. Don't respond with ridicule or mocking, just debate the subject, not the member.

thank you,
Neal