[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-14, 13:23, said:

There is no reason the word "marriage" cannot be applied to a union between persons of the same sex, or multiple persons of either or both sexes. In fact, at least in my opinion, any contractual union between adults is their business alone, and neither the Church nor the State should have any say in it.

Agree. However, the standard contract implied by civil marriage largely assigns a certain set of rights to a single individual. Such a contract among multiple individuals would by necessity be substantially different.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2014-May-14, 14:31, said:

Agree. However, the standard contract implied by civil marriage largely assigns a certain set of rights to a single individual. Such a contract among multiple individuals would by necessity be substantially different.

Yes, but I think that working out such a contract would be a good thing. Many polygamous families are taking advantage of the taxpayer -- the wives who are not legally married claim to be single mothers and collect welfare.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-14, 13:23, said:

The Christian religious seem to think the word "matrimony" (a synonym for marriage) cannot be separated from the phrase "the sacrament of holy matrimony", which by church doctrine is a union between a man and a woman.

I'm going to disagree with you publicly, only because Winston says if I don't then I agree with you. The spirit of your words is absolutely correct - more so, they are saying that the word must mean in government what it means to their particular sect of Christianity, because it's the same word (which is also their "concern" about the change - if the government says marriage is <this>, and government thinks the same way they do (which is that what's right for the things they control is right for everyone else as well), then they'll be "forced to marry <any of this>". To which I will point to the Catholics or the Jews or the LDS and inter-faith marriages, or to the Catholics at least and marriage to a divorce(e), and say "srsly? why would this be any different?") but the words are incorrect.

To disprove, I present my previous comment above. For at least the second-largest Christian denomination in the second-largest country in the world, both the separation exists (in fact, in Alberta, at least, the separation is by law - there are two procedures in any church wedding; and there's a bit in the middle of the ceremony where the leader puts on her government official hat for 5 minutes or so, and does the other procedure), and there is no more difference between "traditional" marriage and same-sex unions (and interracial unions, for that matter). We are not the only ones.

The fundamentalist Protestant Christian right has occupied the megaphone for a while, at least in the US. They don't speak for all Christians. That fact, if you are either part of that section of Christianity or outside it completely, can be difficult to notice.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-14, 13:23, said:

In fact, at least in my opinion, any contractual union between adults is their business alone, and neither the Church nor the State should have any say in it.

Except that it's not just an issue between the couple, it has tendrils into many areas of society. Married people can file joint taxes, they have inheritance rights, they have access to each other's financial and medical records, they can be included in family insurance plans, they can't be compelled to testify against each other in court, they can get a Green Card if their spouse is a citizen, to name just a few.

So unless you want to get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples, the law needs a concrete definition of marriage.

And it's the Church's business if they consider marriage to be a holy sacrament, and their religion addresses this. If they preach that homosexuality is a violation of the principles of their religion, it would be the height of hypocracy for them to condone it by marrying them. Of course, it's not like religions have never been known to be hypocritical.

[blackshoe]

I do want to "get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples" — and any legal detriments, too. Level the playing field. Joint taxes? No, the tax laws — if we're going to have taxes, which I would argue we should not — should not treat a "married couple", whatever that means, any different from two single people living together. Inheritance is a matter for the individual leaving whatever he is leaving to whoever he wants to leave it, not a matter into which the government should insert itself. Ditto the other things you mention, and probably all the things you didn't mention.

Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more people. The exact form of that contract is their business, not any religion's. If a member of a particular religion wants to make a contract that complies with his or her religion's tenets regarding marriage, more power to him (or her), but again that is the decision of the contractees involved. The religion (or the State) has no business trying to compel anyone to adhere to those tenets.

[Winstonm]

Severely edited to the two points I wish to address. (I hope it is OK with you if I edit like this)

mycroft, on 2014-May-14, 17:46, said:

I'm going to disagree with you publicly, only because Winston says if I don't then I agree with you.

The fundamentalist Protestant Christian right has occupied the megaphone for a while, at least in the US. They don't speak for all Christians. That fact, if you are either part of that section of Christianity or outside it completely, can be difficult to notice.

First, if I said what you claim then I was wrong and unclear, not only in my statement but in the thinking that preceded that statement. What I was trying to get at was that if one is a member of what is viewed as a tribe, then what a small segment of the tribe claims to be true will be accepted by the public as the viewpoint of all of the tribe if it is not loudly castigated.

This leads directly to your second point, which I agree with completely - the megaphone has for too long been held by the extreme members of the xtian tribe, especially in North American, and to me the simplest solution is to abandon the whole concept - but if that is too radical the very least the majority of moderate and liberal xtians should do is vehemently denounce the nonsense the minority is spewing.

[barmar]

So marriage should be no different from any other partnership, where the "business" is the operation of the family?

But don't forget, we have all sorts of legal regulations governing other civil contracts. It seems absurd to imagine that there wouldn't be regulations governing marriage contracts. You're not going to get out of it that easily.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-15, 11:34, said:

I do want to "get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples" — and any legal detriments, too. Level the playing field. Joint taxes? No, the tax laws — if we're going to have taxes, which I would argue we should not — should not treat a "married couple", whatever that means, any different from two single people living together. Inheritance is a matter for the individual leaving whatever he is leaving to whoever he wants to leave it, not a matter into which the government should insert itself. Ditto the other things you mention, and probably all the things you didn't mention.

Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more people. The exact form of that contract is their business, not any religion's. If a member of a particular religion wants to make a contract that complies with his or her religion's tenets regarding marriage, more power to him (or her), but again that is the decision of the contractees involved. The religion (or the State) has no business trying to compel anyone to adhere to those tenets.

This is one of those rare occasions that Ed and I actually agree on something

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2014-May-15, 11:52, said:

First, if I said what you claim then I was wrong and unclear, not only in my statement but in the thinking that preceded that statement. What I was trying to get at was that if one is a member of what is viewed as a tribe, then what a small segment of the tribe claims to be true will be accepted by the public as the viewpoint of all of the tribe if it is not loudly castigated.

And sometimes even if it IS loudly castigated. Consider all the Americans who think that the views of Al Qaeda represent Muslims in general, despite the fact that moderate Muslim leaders have been shouting the opposite ever since 9/11.

Extremists, by their very nature, will always shout louder.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2014-May-15, 11:54, said:

This is one of those rare occasions that Ed and I actually agree on something

Uh, oh.

[kenberg]

A "Solution". The government has to decide who can be buried in a Veteran's cemetery. It could decide (it probably won't, but it could) that a Vet is entitled to two burial spots. One for himself/herself, another for a person of his/her choosing. An Aunt, a son, a spouse, a mistress, it's the Vet's choice. That would get the government out of the business of deciding who is married and who is not, at least for the purpose of burial.

However: Now I am guessing of course, but I am guessing that Ms.Taylor would not be particularly enthusiastic about this solution.She wants, yes, I am still guessing, she wants her marriage to be recognized. It's not a matter, or not just a matter, of where who gets buried. She wants her marriage recognized as a marriage.

[mike777]

Where is the outrage from religious moderates? Idaho Homopobia?


In todays University/College of debate If you have conservative belief that is thought of as immoral, that belief is suppressed.

My sister is gay and married but the debate has shifted to if you disagree you should be suppressed.

Lose your status, your job, think of you as the worst case Nazi.

If you debate gay marriage you are a Nazi or worse...if that is possible.

At the very least do not have a college/teaching job.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-15, 11:34, said:

I do want to "get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples" — and any legal detriments, too. Level the playing field. Joint taxes? No, the tax laws — if we're going to have taxes, which I would argue we should not — should not treat a "married couple", whatever that means, any different from two single people living together. Inheritance is a matter for the individual leaving whatever he is leaving to whoever he wants to leave it, not a matter into which the government should insert itself. Ditto the other things you mention, and probably all the things you didn't mention.

Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more people. The exact form of that contract is their business, not any religion's. If a member of a particular religion wants to make a contract that complies with his or her religion's tenets regarding marriage, more power to him (or her), but again that is the decision of the contractees involved. The religion (or the State) has no business trying to compel anyone to adhere to those tenets.

"Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more"

NO

My best guess is marriage is more than just some contract.

OTOH if so you make a strong argument.

If marriage is just such a contract then proof it.

--

fwiw I made the same statement long ago on bbo. The issue always comes back to the state.

[mycroft]

Winston, you started by saying that we as more moderate Christians need to speak up every time any one of those do anything wrong, or unChristian, or...

I was sort of joking in the statement you quoted, but I wasn't in my original post to this thread - if you think that I have to say something every time one of these things happen, then you have to say something every time the government (any of at least the 51) do anything your "minority opinion" considers unAmerican. If you want to view people as a tribe, then I get to too.

I also see no acknowledgement that in this case, I actually *did* speak up, and in a way that completely separates at least 100 000 people from the megaphone.

What annoys me specifically about this case is that the law doesn't require the proposed burial (although changes to the laws relating to the military and veterans may end up requiring it); but as far as I can tell, the law doesn't forbid it either. The person doing the denying isn't being forced into the choice, he's choosing to be a bigot because he can, and then arguing that he's only doing what the law tells him to do. Petty bigoted bullshit he thinks he can get away with, in other words.

As to how that reflects on his own faith, I will leave that to those with eyes to see.

As to how to remove the megaphone, it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with power. If the Religious Right weren't a vehicle to power, some other group would have the megaphone; and it would prey on the people who are afraid of losing their power just as well. Fear has always been the best leash.

[mikeh]

I read the Op as being more about the apathy he perceives in the public stances taken by Xian organizations that claim to occupy the moderate part of the spectrum that makes up organized Xianity, rather than an attack on the Xian moderates who post here, or Xian moderates as individuals everywhere.

Thus I read Rik's initial response with some bemusement.

I may have misread the OP, but personally I am no more critical of the failure by the Riks and Mycrofts of the world to publicly denounce fundie-inspired bigotry than I am of my own failure to write letters to editors, march up and down with placards and the like.

Edited

A moderate arguing with a fundie is reduced to saying: I know how to read the mind of god better than you do.

However, the moderate and the fundie start from the same premise and have exactly the same information, so there is no logical reason why the moderate should win. A moderate simply points to fashion.

Since that is so, it isn't surprising that moderate religious orders rarely tackle the insanity of the fundies directly. The best anti-fundie arguments are off-limits to and indeed often seem invisible to moderates, since such arguments invalidate the beliefs of the moderates as effectively as those of the fundies.

An atheist arguing with either a moderate or a fundie says: why do you even have a need to have a god in the first place?

The entire universe and, in particular, observable human behaviour makes so much more sense once one accepts that man created god rather than the other way around

[Winstonm]

mycroft, on 2014-May-16, 11:07, said:

Winston, you started by saying that we as more moderate Christians need to speak up every time any one of those do anything wrong, or unChristian, or...

I was sort of joking in the statement you quoted, but I wasn't in my original post to this thread - if you think that I have to say something every time one of these things happen, then you have to say something every time the government (any of at least the 51) do anything your "minority opinion" considers unAmerican. If you want to view people as a tribe, then I get to too.

I also see no acknowledgement that in this case, I actually *did* speak up, and in a way that completely separates at least 100 000 people from the megaphone.

What annoys me specifically about this case is that the law doesn't require the proposed burial (although changes to the laws relating to the military and veterans may end up requiring it); but as far as I can tell, the law doesn't forbid it either. The person doing the denying isn't being forced into the choice, he's choosing to be a bigot because he can, and then arguing that he's only doing what the law tells him to do. Petty bigoted bullshit he thinks he can get away with, in other words.

As to how that reflects on his own faith, I will leave that to those with eyes to see.

As to how to remove the megaphone, it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with power. If the Religious Right weren't a vehicle to power, some other group would have the megaphone; and it would prey on the people who are afraid of losing their power just as well. Fear has always been the best leash.

I appreciate your views. My basic position concerning this case is that the basis for these anti-gay laws is religious bias. When a minority religious bias paints an entire group a single color, I would think that those within that group who disagree would try to "shout down" the minority.

I understand it is about power - but the power sought is the power to instill religious belief into society - theocracy, whether viewed from the side of religion or secularism - should be castigated. And loudly.

[mycroft]

I disagree. I believe quite strongly (as I said above) that the power sought is the power to control others - and one thing I will not argue against is that religion, in particular official religion, and in the last 1000 years at least Christianity and Islam in the regions they have held sway over, is a particularly easy and powerful handle to exercise those powers. But were it not there, there would be something else, sure as the Communists flowed into the Drug Dealers flowed into the Terrorists.

[gwnn]

When we celebrate the intellect of Newton, we don't say "Were it not for him, there would've been someone else", that would be bad form. So why isn't it bad form to mention that when it comes to terrible things done by people or groups of people? Another thing that this reminds me of is "guns don't kill people, people do", i.e. "if he hadn't had a gun, he could've killed those people with a knife or his bare hands if he had tried enough". Simply put, not all tools are created equal in killing people or even controlling large masses of people. Worshipping George Carlin, for example, who made fun of the government at every turn in his acts, will make you less of a sheep than worshipping someone who preaches obedience and meekness. I am painting with a broad brush, I know, and I know that many Christians have highly developed critical thinking, but I think we can both agree that that skepticism is not overtly mentioned as a virtue in most typical forms of Christianity.

[Winstonm]

mycroft, on 2014-May-16, 14:06, said:

I disagree. I believe quite strongly (as I said above) that the power sought is the power to control others - and one thing I will not argue against is that religion, in particular official religion, and in the last 1000 years at least Christianity and Islam in the regions they have held sway over, is a particularly easy and powerful handle to exercise those powers. But were it not there, there would be something else, sure as the Communists flowed into the Drug Dealers flowed into the Terrorists.

Ultimately, power is about self-replication, about creating mini-mes. The control you speak of is an attempt to control the thoughts and beliefs of others.

If you will notice, the basic tenet of religion is not "think for yourselves" but "follow (and think like) me". It is hard to gather and wield great power if the stated objective is to encourage critical thinking and independent decision-making.

[mycroft]

I think Winston, you should ask a practising Jew or a Jesuit about that last paragraph. Again, while frequently true, it's by no means the tenet (unless, in Christianity at least, "be like me" means - a whole bunch of things that most Christians, myself included, I'm embarrassed to say, don't actually practise, or even promote). That's the power talking, not the Christ.