If You Oppose Marriage Equality, What Else Am I Supposed to Call You?

You are no longer special if everyone has the same rights you have. If you start ripping all the bigoted, hateful, and magic pages out of the bible about all you will have left is some weird stories and humanist ramblings. Then your jewelry will be the only thing that identifies you as an Xian. 

*I* wasn’t always tolerant. I recall having a nearly heated discussion with someone with me on the anti-gay couple-adoption topic. I wasn’t a homophobe, by that time I had evolved beyond that, but I still had something in my mind that the traditional family was the preferable one. I was 19, already an (cognizant) atheist for 8 years, and lived in a conservative community.
I don’t know if I use the term bigot to describe myself back then.. but I *DO* use the term “ignorant”. I was. I am ashamed of it.
Unfortunately, “ignorance” is a badge for many of these people… so calling them ignorant isn’t going to be an impetus to change. Calling them bigot or homophobe s more powerful and likely close enough and for some, might instil enough shame that they look at it differently.

I am going to say something that I know I will take a lot of criticism for, but I am willing to defend the position.

I do not see the use of organizing mass boycotts of Chick-Fil-A.

Almost every company has some sort of political agenda that they are selling you with their product. Serious ethical issues are involved with purchasing almost anything from multinational corporations; the very shirt on your back was probably made by sweatshop workers who are paid far less than what we might call “minimum wage.”

Honestly enough, it has been a long time since I have gone to a Chick-Fil-A. I stopped going shortly after I learned last year that they donated money (and free chicken) to Exodus International. (For those of you who don’t know what Exodus is, it’s one of the larger pray-away-the-gay centers here in the US.) I was surprised that most of the public were *just* figuring out that the company supported anti-gay causes.

So, many of you may be asking: ” If you say that you do not go to Chick-Fil-A because of their anti-gay donations and viewpoints, what is wrong with others organizing boycotts?” In my view, it isn’t a savvy political move for supporters of LGBT rights to take for many reasons. Lambasting his company will not cause Mr. Cathy to change his beliefs or his donations. Also, social conservatives strongly believe that Western culture is “persecuting” them for their beliefs; in their eyes, the outcry and anger over Chick-Fil-A is simply the attempt of liberals and progressives to take down a “Christian” business. Finally, while the boycotts may be working in other areas of the country, they are not working here in the South. My local Chick-Fil-A was packed at lunchtime yesterday; plenty of people showed up for the Appreciation Day that was organized on Facebook.

In conclusion, I would like to address some of the points you made against Evan’s argument. The definition of the word “homophobe” is “someone who has an irrational fear and prejudice against homosexuals.” Everybody who is against homosexuality is not a homophobe; bigot would be a more appropriate term for the majority of anti-gay activists. True homophobes have very distinct ways of talking and thinking: they generally dislike monotony, they possess repressed homosexual tendencies, and they are somewhat obsessive. I agree that homophobes are awful people; I know from personal experience. 

I’d also add that people are multi-faceted and though they may be complete bigots in one area, they can be very nice in others.

I think this may be the problem that “bridge the gap” people like Rachael Held Evens try to point out. Oftentimes, when someone is called a bigot, they think it applies to their whole self – as if everything they do is bigoted. It may be better to make it clear that it is the  actions they take against the LGBT community that are bigoted.

“Your stance on this matter is very bigoted,” is still very direct and to the point. “You are a bigot” is too often interpreted as “Everything about you is rotten.” This is often not the case.

The whole idea of barring any two consenting adults from marriage just seems unfathomable to me.  The whole subject of marriage equality is a prime example of why there is a need for separation of church and state, and what happens when a social institution slips between the cracks.  No government document should have the term married on it.  Marriage, for millennia, has been a religious institution, and whereas most religions do not recognize same sex marriages, just as a few religions do not recognize inter-racial marriage, our government has taken the stance of supporting those religious views of bigotry and ignoring the religious views of acceptance. 
Now I’m not saying to take away the institution of marriage.  If a priest, pastor, shaman, imam, etc., wishes to marry two people within the proceedings of their institution, they have every right to.  And here, the term marriage, would begin and end with a religious promise that stays withing the confines of the church, temple, what have you. I unfortunately know a few people who believe that unless someone was married in the “right” church, they aren’t really married.  However, those marriages should have no legal standing.  A different legal contract should be available to form a partnership between two consenting adults that  grants the privileges of our current legal concept of marriage.  I know that this has been attempted with a “separate but equal” civil union.  It would take education, and more so, a complete rewording of all legal documents to eliminate the term marriage legally, and incorporate a substitute term across the board.

 See you there…

It’s exactly Christ like. This is the Christ whose garment hem will be soaked in blood.

They love the sinner. They hate the sin.

Fuck ’em.

I agree with your last paragraph here.

I, too, was surprised that people didn’t already know about the donations to companies like Exodus because I learned about that years ago. I think the overarching good for equality coming from this is that we are forcing people to realize their ideas and position about this matter, which means they need to stop ignoring this issue and figure out what they actually believe. For a while, I passively believed it was a sin just because that’s what I was taught. Then I went to college and had a lot of gay friends and realized I had to better understand my arguments, only to finally discover I didn’t have any valid arguments. Putting this protest so harshly in the public sphere is, hopefully, having a similar effect on some people. Yes, it polarizes the issue a bit more, but it also stops the general passivity that is only perpetuating this problem. I’m glad people are being forced to talk and think about it.

I too have known about the donations for years (and don’t have any local franchises to boycott in any case), but I think Chick-Fil-A executives had denied it until Dan Cathy spoke up and said, “Guilty as charged”. That’s why a lot more people are sitting up and taking notice.

 Too many women want to get married for that to work.

Partnerships should work like births and deaths do – you don’t go through the process in a ceremonial fashion, it just happens, then you tell the state afterwards to register the fact.

There’s no intolerance here. If CFA customers want to not have gay sex, not have gay marriages, not even go to gay weddings, then they are, and should and will remain, entirely free to (not) do those things. That’s their freedom to practice their beliefs.

Actually, I proposed a solution to this problem (gay marriage issue) well over two decades ago. Strangely, it met with opposition. See, my solution…? Utilize the laws we already have in place– only with one change: Replace all references to “marriage” with the words “civil union” or “domestic partnership”. Combine “Married” rules in taxes with “Head of Household” rules… allowing ANY group of people who co-habitate to combine their assets and write-offs for tax purposes, or to be considered legal representatives on behalf of each other.Problem solved. See, my reasoning is that “marriage” is considered a religious ceremony, and for government purposes, is NOT what is an issue. The issue is of rights and benefits afforded to “married” couples. Change that to reflect the reality of the society.

Then why are politicians stepping in to say they should be punished for their beliefs?   And why are so many tolerant “liberals” cheering that decision?

I think the line  “Marriage, for millennia, has been a religious institution…” could be easily debated.

Nobody uses red hot pokers nowadays.   Instead we use other forms.  Of course now, with elected officials jumping in, we’re getting to good old fashion censorship – something I notice many on the so called ‘liberal Left’ are cheering about.

Er, read the Bible. There are passages with Jesus preaching about hell and damnation.

And how are they punished for their beliefs?  You have a right to your beliefs and I have a right to mine.  When your beliefs hurt someone else, that’s where I draw the line.  I’m not talking about hurting someone’s feelings either.

We have a right to not go to the nasty restaurant the same as you have a right to oppose same sex marriage.  I really don’t give a flying rat’s what you think but don’t say you’re getting punished for believing something.

I have to say this.  As an atheist, I was more than a little surprised when my really REALLY Catholic mother came out in support of gay marriage.  I agree, that it would be very difficult for her to talk about it in the area where she lives, or in her church, but I just can’t tell you how happy I was to hear what she did.  She voted for Gay marraige.  In the reddest part of North Carolina, she was a lone vote for gay marriage.  I think there is a way that some christians can be for gay marriage, but I also think my mother is a bit of a rarity, and has compartmentalized her dogma and her feelings about equity. 

I just wanted to brag.  I wish every christian could feel like my mom, at least on this issue.

Excellent article, Hemant

Not yet, but getting there, at least if the wishes of some of the more fanatic secular zealots and leftist thugs get their way.  But then, I’m reminded that people who persecute always insist the ones they are persecuting are just fine, or still a threat.  So you are just about right on time with the latest ‘how to justify censorship’ playbook.  

Look in the mirror.

Told to get out of town because of them by elected government officials.  Haven’t you been following the news?

Sorry, this is all about the head of a company voicing his beliefs (the same beliefs our President held up to a few weeks ago in the election cycle).  He didn’t *do* anything.  He simply said.  And with that, elected officials of our government stepped in and tried to run him out of town, just like the old pictures we used to see of puritans running religious dissidents out of town (when we had lessons on how evil intolerance was).  And many on the left cheered their actions.  If CFA bans gays from eating there, then that’s something.  But the Left’s vain and empty attempt to equate not conforming to liberal same-think with *doing something wrong* is one of the most laughably transparent attempts to justify censorship since McCarthy.

This is what makes you a bigot, you are more concerned with the rights of a few people to sell chicken, rights that in reality no one really thinks can be taken away, than you are with the rights of a large segment of the population to get married!

Sorry, this is all about the head of a company voicing his
beliefs (the same beliefs our President held up to a few weeks ago in the
election cycle). He didn’t *do* anything. He simply said. And with that,
elected officials of our government stepped in and tried to run him out of
town, just like the old pictures we used to see of puritans running religious
dissidents out of town (when we had lessons on how evil intolerance was). If
CFA bans gays from eating there, then that’s something. But the Left’s vain and
empty attempt to equate not conforming to liberal same-think with *doing
something wrong* is one of the most laughably transparent attempts to justify
censorship since McCarthy.

These people meet the definition of “bigot” whether they like the term or not. It’s true that we often associate the term with beliefs stemming from hate, but that need not be the case. Certainly, not all opposed to same-sex marriage or other gay rights are homophobes, but I think there’s good reason to suspect that many are. It is natural to dislike things we don’t understand or that we fear, and I think that’s the primary factor driving anti-gay beliefs.

Above all, what I consider these people to be is intellectually and morally weak. Humans are naturally xenophobic. We all have a natural distrust of those outside our group. We all have a degree of racism and sexism (you’re lying to yourself if you disagree with this assessment), and in the same way are likely to feel slightly uncomfortable around people of different sexual orientation. But we also have the ability to use our intellect to override these more instinctual reactions. And when we do that, we train our brains to eliminate specific reactions against the “different”. In effect, we expand our group identity.

I know there are many humanists reading this who remember a time when they were at least mildly racist, or mildly anti-homosexual. I’m sure a lot depends on age. I’m not old enough to really remember the racial civil rights movement… the big battles had already been won by the time I was old enough to really appreciate it. So my degree of racism has always been low (but not zero). On the other hand, when I was in school, it was fair game to call somebody queer for any number of reasons (many of which made no sense). Few questioned that such people (living shadowy lives) were unnatural. That was already changing then, especially regionally. I wasn’t long out of school before I met openly gay people, and started being more reflective in my thinking, and easily gave up any negativity towards homosexuals. Others here must also remember a similar process. And that’s the key: humanists (and I don’t just mean secular humanists) are intellectually honest enough to recognize a prejudice for what it is. It may persist at some level, but we are able to replace it with a reasoned response. And of course, with time that will probably completely eliminate the original prejudice.

Self-reflection is the key. Thinking about your beliefs, thinking about where they come from, thinking about whether they really make sense. I think that most of the “bigots” and “homophobes” don’t do this. And their religion is one of the big roadblocks, since religion seldom encourages (and often actively discourages) self-analysis, preferring instead to impose ideas externally.

Spot on Hemant. I’ve run into this problem before and frankly I no longer care about those peoples feelings. And thats what this come down to, you have a bunch of people who act bigoted, take bigoted positions, and support bigoted laws but want to be thought of as “nice” people. Sorry but if the label hurts perhaps you should evaluate why, and what it is your doing to cause people to call you that.

If people dance around calling a bigot a bigot, then those that are ashamed of the label will never have cause to examine their won beliefs.

<blockquote"I'd actually be interested in
hearing from people who have made the transition from being
anti-equality to pro-equality without having held hatred in their hearts
before the change. Do you consider that your previous stance was a
bigoted one?"
Yes, absolutely. I also had several gay friends and work associates at that time. At the age of 40 (years before I became a full-fledged atheist), I did a complete turn-around and understood that my beliefs were indeed bigoted, no matter how kind, friendly or well-meaning I thought I was.

 oops…don’t know what happened to my other reply…disregard the attempted block quote in the beginning and read on to my response…

I’ve been advocating (yelling on the internet) pretty much this too but fro a different angle. I’ve alway thought the laws against gay marriage (and where they just are not permitted) should be challenged on a first amendment grounds. If “marriage” is a religious institution then the government has no business defining it. And if it’s not, then a secular argument has to be made (in court) as to why homosexuals  should not marry (and none of those work).

And on a side note, every time someones cry’s “religious persecution” at the thought of gay marrying, it should be loudly yelled back (in the media) that the two gay people have a religion too (many times they do) that is being persecuted first!

“…elected government officials stepping in and attempting to ban something because of a person’s beliefs.”
Hmm, so the government “representatives” trying to ban gay marriage because of their own religious beliefs don’t count, huh?  Or the ones trying to ban contraceptives, or abortion rights, or the building of mosques on private property that just happens to be in NYC, or atheist clubs in public schools?

Yes, it’s wrong.  I do think that the religious side has quite a bit more on its plate, however.  Doesn’t it say in the Bible something about “remone the plank in thine own eye before the speck in thy brother’s”?  (Matthew 7:3)

*shrugs*  Just thought I’d use a reference you might just recognize.

No, I was talking about the Mayors of Boston and Chicago, who some on the Left condemned, but others didn’t. But the Alderman story works, too, since it’s received the same mixture of praise/condemnation.   And by the way, some on this site have condemned these actions – and bravo to them.  But if I was them, I would now turn my attention to my ideological brethren and shame them for even coming close to endorsing such obvious, heavy handed tactics, rather than focus on someone who they must obviously agree with.

 Ah, but he did *do*.  By financially supporting anti-LGBT “charities,” he took his exercise of religion beyond simple belief, congregation, and worship, and into the realm of application of financial resources that can have a real effect on the lives of others who are in no way affiliated with him.

The beautiful thing about the USA is that he is free to do that.  Another beautiful thing about the USA is that we’re free to impose financial consequences upon him for it.

As for politicians stepping in, I actually side with CFA on that one.  I agree that the government should not be trying to deny them the right to do business based on what Cathy’s contributions are.

I also think, though, that the government should simply do an end-run around those contributions, aggressively enshrining absolute LGBT equality into law and criminalizing “conversion therapy”/”pray the gay away” treatments in the interest of protecting innocent LGBT people from religious persecution.  Don’t deny CFA the right to do business based on contributing to anti-gay “therapy” centers.  Deny the “therapy” centers the right to do business based on their business being institutionalized abuse and human-rights violations.

Personally I think Dan Cathy is an evil person for donating to Exodus Int’l.  However, I think that Exodus Int’l is more evil for doing what they do.  Kill Exodus and jerk the proverbial rug out from under Cathy, then laugh as he scrambles to find a new prejudice to rally behind.

Straw man argument here go read it!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/f…

The vast, vast majority of “lefties” here are against the government doing what you describe!

Reminded me of an article:  “Several of us plan to bring a token of Christian love (like a small bag of cookies or other treats) to share with homosexual activists who we’ll be encountering Monday,” the group wrote in a newsletter to supporters. “It’s time we dispel lies about Christians, by tangibly showing love to people who struggle with homosexuality.”
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/08/iowa-christian-love-ill-trade-you-cookies-for-your-rights.htm “Oh. The right to marry the person you love and want to live your life with? No, we can’t give that to you, sorry. But we’re nice people and love you; have a cookie. ” If this is as deep as Christian love gets then we’re more doomed than we thought.

First, I’m not your fucking friend. “Elected government officials”? “Those who cheer them”? You mean like the ones who deny others the same rights they give themselves?

Reminds me of when the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on same-sex relationships. It was a 4-3 ruling saying NJ either had to provide SSM or something that gave all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. The three dissenters voted against it because they supported full marriage equality.

Not only was it open to the public, but they operated it under a program that explicitly obligated them to make it available to everyone in return for tax reductions. So we have the usual case of Christians wanting tax-payer money while discriminating.

Oftentimes, when someone is called a bigot, they think it applies to their whole self – as if everything they do is bigoted. It may be better to make it clear that it is the actions they take against the LGBT community that are bigoted.

“Your stance on this matter is very bigoted,” is still very direct and to the point. “You are a bigot” is too often interpreted as “Everything about you is rotten.”

I think is a brilliant point.  

If you really want to forgo oppression, give up the chicken altogether.  Just because they are another species, just because their DNA is a little different than ours, does not give us the right to deny everything natural to them, keep them confined in cages so small they cannot spread one wing, cram them into trucks and drive them across the country in all weather extremes to a slaughterhouse and put them on a “dis-assembly line” without properly stunning them.  It’s easy to look at how others our oppressing us but harder to look at how we’re oppressing others.

 And has been. The MA Supreme Judicial Court addressed that very issue at length in their ruling on the matter.

I recently banished a friend, from childhood, from my online spaces because of bigotry. He was ranting about how unfair it was to call him a bigot then started saying hateful things about the LGBT community and their desire to have their marriages recognized by the state.  My response to this behavior is simple, hate is the one thing I won’t tolerate.

 This is in response to all who posted in response to my post.  Reading comprehension would really help these discussions.  The examples I gave were given to show that same sex marriage takes away religious freedoms. The businesses I mentioned did not want to provide services for a same sex ceremony based upon their religious beliefs.  They were fined and threatened for failing to do so. I  gave these examples of people being forced to attend or participate in same sex weddings against their religious beliefs. The fact that you try to justify doesn’t change the point I made- people who oppose same sex marriages will be forced to participate in them despite their religious beliefs something that Hemant said would not happen. Not only will it happen, it already is and you are trying to justify it.

As for the churches having to perform same sex marriages, I specifically said that would be the next step and mentioned the New Jersey case as an example of where this will come from.  Your points prove it. Yes this park was owned by the church and yes they opened it to the public and yes they received a tax exemption on it because it was a religious facility. They were then forced to allow a same sex wedding to take place on the premises.  Churches are also open to the public and  they receive tax exemptions. It is a small step to say that their facilities will one day be asked to allow a same sex marriage to take place in their buildings and when they say no it will be called discrimination.  It is already happening in Europe. 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/

The threats and lawsuits are already happening in Canada.

http://faithinourfamilies.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/hundreds-of-christians-prosecuted-over-same-sex-marriage-law/

As for the Swedish pastor being jailed,  do you really think it is not a problem since he was released by the court of appeals?  The fact is he was arrested for preaching in his pulpit because the government did not like what he was saying about homosexuality among other sins in Romans 1. My point is made.

The truth is we know you are lying and we know that your goal does not stop with simply legalizing same sex marriages. The goal is to take away our religious liberties and the proof is already out there where same sex marriage is legal. 

 So those that have same sex attraction and don’t want them who are voluntarily counseled by Exodus or other type counselors  should not be given any treatment?

I agree with you that those who are against full rights for gay people are bigots. What annoys me is the assumption I see from some that all Christians are bigots in this area. Most of my family members are Christian and most (maybe all — haven’t discussed with everyone!) support marriage equality. Some have come to this position recently, but at least they made it! My father-in-law is a Presbyterian minister who was very active in civil rights for black people in the 1960’s (he was high profile enough to receive death threats) and he is now an activist for gay rights. He was even ahead of his grandchildren (my brother-in-law’s kids) who would use the word “fag” as a general insult until Granddad explained this was insulting to a whole class of people.

I live in a pretty liberal area and a number of churches here (including Lutheran and UCC congregations and probably others) are “open and affirming.” This means they are fully inclusive of LGBTQ people and don’t see them as “damaged” or in need of “fixing.”

Yes, much evil is done in the name of religion and plenty of Christians in this country have all kinds of backwards ideas about people, but being a Christian does not automatically mean a person is anti-gay or a bigot of any kind. I am proud of my father-in-law and I don’t care about his religion because he doesn’t use it as an excuse for mistreating anyone.

Thank you for expressing this in exactly this way.  Just because you don’t WANT to be a bigot, doesn’t mean you aren’t one.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was just making this argument last night, after a friend-of-a-friend posted an article with some of the same sentiments, although the author was very anti-gay marriage. I completely agree. And again I must applaud you for discussing LGBT rights so fervently in your posts. It always puts a smile on my face to know we have such a passionate and intelligent supporter!

I’ve never heard the public restroom analogy. My kids go to a pretty hippy-dippy liberal school. They’ve had a number of transgender students (and one transgender teacher) and now have a “genderless” bathroom along with the more traditional boys’ and girls’ rooms. If this becomes the norm it may destroy your friends’ arguments!

You would think that a person with the screen name “Rwlawoffice” would know a little bit about anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to liberals, no it doesn’t, which is why liberals and those on the left say nobody has that right.  That’s the snag, isn’t it.  Conservatives have long said governments have a right to uphold some beliefs and not others.  That’s what the whole liberal revolution was about: tolerance for all, diversity everywhere, no more allowing your own beliefs to step on other’s beliefs and lifestyles.  That’s the rub, isn’t it.  Was all that liberal grandstanding just a farce, a lie, a joke?  Or are they now standing as a classic case of hypocrisy and double standard 101?  It has to be one or the other.

Yeah, but as a fellow Bay Stater, I can tell you that this state is much more liberal than most of the rest of the country. We’re lucky to not see the same levels of bigotry and denial of equal rights that much of the rest of the nation has.

Hate is an emotion, and that’s fine. But hate takes its more nefarious form as an action. Actions speak louder than words and they hurt more than someone else’s internal feelings. Just as marriage cannot last without commitment, comfort, attention, sacrifice, and all those actions that sustain the relationship, no amount of feelings of love or stated commitment can overcome the damaging and hateful practice of denying a person’s very being or putting a barrier between that person and the one they love. That is hate. Whatever you call it, this treatment literally makes people kill themselves, so opposing gay rights is an indefensible position.

 Secular therapists, or anyone else without a hidden agenda to aggrandize Stupid Jesus Shit (TM), are more than capable of handling those matters.

Bear in mind that christian bigotry is largely responsible for these people not wanting those feelings.  If they didn’t feel like fucking pariahs for having them, I think far fewer LGBT people would feel so ashamed for being who they are.

Ah, they old ‘he supports things I don’t, so he should be censored’ leftist argument.  How nice. Liberalism – if it weren’t so dangerous, it would be funny.

Then why are so many arguing with me about it?

JGaryP, I was exactly the same way you were back when I was a Christian. I didn’t hate gays. I truly thought they were lost souls who “chose” to be gay and that all they needed was to be “saved” and everything would be alright. They could be “normal” again.  Gay marriage wasn’t an issue back then but I know I would have been against it.  I WAS against gay clergy, gays in the military, etc. But I would have been offended if you called me a bigot—even though I was one. I just looked upon myself as a “Bible believing Christian.” I look back on my former attitude with shame. Just as I now feel shame when I see all the big crowds going into Chick-Fil-A to “take a stand for traditional marriage.”

 I do.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 dealings with hiring and employment. It currently does not list sexual orientation as a protected class.  Some states do, but not the federal law.

What does any of this have to do with bigots who are against marriage quality?

 Thousands of people have turned from their same sex attractions and live wonderful lives as hetero- sexuals. So it appears that it can be done, but do deny these folks treatment and to outlaw it is unethical and draconian.

“These people meet the definition of “bigot” whether they like the term or not. It’s true that we often associate the term with beliefs stemming from hate, but that need not be the case.”
I think bigotry stems from fear, not hate, which is the case with Christian bigotry here. Otherwise, well said as always, C Peterson.

You are absolutely right, when you strip away religion, there is no logical, social, biological or political reason to deny same sex marriages.  None, nada, rien! The ONLY reason there is a debate at all is because of religion.
The core issue here is not marriage equality, but religious bullshit. The same religious bull crap that has striped away a women’s right to control her own body in so many states.  The same crap that forces a ludicrous creationist education on hapless children and has sentenced generations of innocent Irish children to civil war.
We need to stop making the debates about the topic at hand and start making every debate about how childish, idiotic, and untrue their religion is.
If their opening volley in the debate is we disagree on religious grounds, we need to say, sorry religious grounds are not a valid starting point. Until you can prove the validity and truth of your religion, your position is not accepted. Tell us some non-religious reasons why you are against whatever it is we’re debating and then we can debate.

In the meantime, calling a spade a spade or a bigot a bigot is totally justified.

No I don’t think Christians need to worry too much about persecution yet either. But “Guest” does make a valid point. S/he’s talking about the idiot mayors who are saying they’re going to ban Chick-Fil-A based on political disagreements. Boycotts or shows of support are great and democratic, but government officials making threats against those they disagree with are not on the right path. Unlike “Guest,” I don’t think this is a huge problem or the way liberalism in general is going. Just a few idiots.

 Good blog about it here: 
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Its-not-true-liberals-threatening-to-ban-Chick-Fil-Aits-idiots.html

Wow, seriously?  I never thought I’d see the day we had that.

Maybe erasing gender and embracing the individual isn’t an unattainable goal after all.

 Please indicate where I said that the Civil Rights Act would be the law used force churches to perform same sex marriages? I didn’t.  However,  the EEOC tried to get rid of the ministerial exception to this act in Tabor v. the EEOC which is they had won would have applied this law to churches.

Marriage is defined “between one man and one woman”  It has nothing to do with being a bigot.  I don’t care who is with who.  Simply find a “word or words” to define a same sex couple union.  So many haters out there and this is making it worse.  Chick Fil A gave his opinion, he has every right to do that, he still does have that right, freedom of speech?!  If you don’t like his opinion, do not go to his place of business, instead of trying to block others from being built.  Chicago has moral standards?  Please, give me a break.  How many murders this year?  And your talking about this?

It’s not often I agree 100% with something on the internet. This is one of those times. Maybe I should buy a lotto ticket.

Thanks for the clear-headed post, Hemant. 

I’m going to make this real simple for you o.k. ” The examples I gave were given to show that same sex marriage takes away religious freedoms.” WHAT ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CHURCHES WHO THINK SAME SEX MARIGE IS FINE? You seem to have no problem taking away their religious freedom, you bigoted hypocrite.

As for the rest, well apparently you think a business owner who says his religion says black and whites should not mix has the right to refuse service to black people. Good to know when it comes down to it people like you support legal discrimination!

I would add to Fred Clark, that it is in fact WORSE to wrap such cruelty in the trappings of niceness.   Trying to make poison smell like honey is a nasty business altogether.

“In this case, one side is right and the other side is full of Christians.” I started laughing – loudly – in middle of my office at that line.

Exactly. Civil governments have overseen the licensing or registration of marriages and other family statuses since the 16th and 17th centuries (and before churches got involved a couple of centuries before that, common law marriage was the norm). Ironically it was the Protestant churches of that time that voluntarily agreed to that arrangement. Europe has had purely civil marriages since the late 18th and 19th centuries – as in churches can’t even legally notarize a marriage there. So why are they trying to rewrite history now?

From Slacktivist  (via Libby Anne):

This misunderstands, and fundamentally misrepresents, the complaint of those who are upset with Chik-fil-A. Unlike Young and the Christianity Today crowd, these folks don’t primarily view the world through  the lens of “stances.” They’re not upset with Cathy’s “stance,” but with his actions.

Because those actions matter. Dan Cathy and Chik-fil-A are exerting power against other people. They are using their financial power to leverage political power in order to deny others their rights.

Chik-fil-A’s critics aren’t concerned about Cathy’s opinions, but about his actions — his actions against them.

Against them and their fellow human beings.

 You clearly haven’t been following the news either as EVERYONE,  including the authors of the letters themselves, have acknowledged that there is no legal justification for blocking CFA from opening new stores.

But hey, why start being honest now?

Exactly but then this is why people like”guest” are so stupid. As you say we have “a few idiots” on the left that support it, yet a large percentage of the right, and right wing politicians support the government from banning a Mosque. The hypocrisy of his characterizations hurts.

Does that mean that if I don’t struggle with my homosexuality (or bisexuality) I don’t get cookies?

Because, seriously, I don’t struggle with my bisexuality. I think it’s awesome. My bisexuality and I aren’t fighting, we’re all snuggled up together on a fluffy rug in front of a fire with kittens and puppies marshmallows and chocolate.

 Do you really think that because the EEOC lost at the Supreme Court level that there was no threat to religious liberty? The fact that the government even tried in the first place was the threat and but for a successful defense would have worked. 

As for Christians not being fired for expressing their faith, tell that to the guy in new jersey who just filed a lawsuit for that very reason- fired for wearing a lanard that had a christian message on it.

So we are bigots for being against people who are actively fighting against civil rights for a group of people? We are bigots to your bigotry?

Makes perfect sense.

Censorship is the suppression of communication. None of Roger’s examples were about communication…

I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. So many of my friends on facebook have been sharing this post by Rachel Held Evans and I just can’t hear it anymore. There will be a time when those who are anti-equality will hold the title of bigot as badge of honor but until then it is impossible to conclude that persons who are anti-equality are anything but bigots. Thanks for this post. 

Maybe this sweeping generalization gets made because the only Christians making a bunch of noise are the bigots. It’s very rare to find non-bigot Christians making the same amount of noise. Is this the quiet Christian’s fault? Sometimes it is, many times it’s not. But the impression is that it is more important to “not make waves” with other Christians than it is to stand up for what is right.

Also, please notice that a lot of this bashing is bashing of religion and the religious generally, rather than of Christians specifically. It’s just that in the USA, the Christians are the most visible of the religious.

There are two I know of that perform same sex ceremonies as well. My state doesn’t have marriage but we do have civil unions. 

This point has been refuted so much. I don’t think this person cares. 

I’m too tired to point out your historical fallacies for the thousandth time. Everyone with some sense already know why you’re wrong.

But you’re a liar and you know it. Churches also oppose domestic partnerships and civil unions at every turn. With the exact same arguments they use for “marriage”. Constitutional amendments frequently ban any kind of relationship recognition. They also oppose simple anti-discrimination laws because they don’t want gay people to have any rights.

And no one is forcing you to get gay married. How about instead you stop forcing your fucking beliefs on everyone? Not all people believe the bullshit you do. Marriage has been a civil legal construct for centuries now and your religion has no claim to it. People aren’t telling you what rituals to conduct in your church. In return you don’t get to enshrine your superstitions into the law.

 Sorry John, your lame reassurances are not comforting. The facts and the trends defy your contention that it will never happen. 

In fact, in the new law in Washington State, there was a provision that in the event a church allows non members to use its facilities for weddings, they must offer those facilities to same sex couples as well or it will be considered discrimination. Here is that section:

Section 7 :
Consistent with the law against discrimination [RCW 49.60],
no religious organization is required to provide accommodations,
facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the
solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the
organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of these accommodations
or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages,
privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.So in the event a church allows couples who are not members of the church to use the building to perform weddings, it would have been illegal for them to not allow a same sex couple from doing so even if the church does not agree within its religion to same sex marriages. Fortunately this was removed in the final version but you can see what the intent was.Keep telling  yourself it isn’t going to happen and we will know it still a lie.

 If those churches want to perform same sex marriages they can.  That is different from the state sanctioning them.   But if the state does sanction them and a church refuses to perform them based upon religious beliefs, that is when religious liberty is threatened.

You still have yet to show any  legislation taken against CFA that could be called “censorship” even under your definition.

 I was going to respond to Matt E’s earlier comment that such opinions are rooted in fear by also mentioning ignorance as a factor.  I would guess that either of those conditions are the basis for most bigotry, with true hatred being the case with a relatively small minority. 

Church buildings are private property and not open to the public. 

This is exactly why I object to the label “bigot”: because there are a number of logical, biological, and political reasons to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

Biology is most obvious. The sexual organs have reproduction as their primary purpose. This is not their exclusive function, but it is the primary one: producing sexed gametes that unite with the corresponding opposite-sex gamete, developing into an adult human being. Compare it to eating: we eat for pleasure, but no one denies that nutrition is the primary purpose of eating, and trying to eat exclusively for pleasure can have serious health consequences.

Sex is an inherent part of being human. “Race” based on skin color or ethnicity is a not-terribly-useful way of categorizing large groups of people. It is a natural variant in the biology of human beings. No matter how much sexual desires may vary, the sex organs themselves do not vary based on sexual orientation. The “discrimination” is based, not on a normal variance in the population, but on a constant: not the desire, but the act and its consequences.

This leads to the political reasons.

Marriage is a legal union of persons who are united sexually. (I hope we can all agree on this much, at least: a legal union based on a sexual relationship.)

Now, the only reason the government has for regulating marriage is for the good of the society as a whole. If marriage is entirely a private affair between consenting adults, then the State has no reason to regulate it at all. What happens in my bedroom is not public, is not a matter for legal intrusion – unless it impacts the broader society as a whole.

The impact that sex has on the broader society as a whole is based on the biology: when the sex organs fulfill their primary purpose, they will frequently result in the birth of a child. This child needs to be raised into a functional adult. If we don’t have children, society ends. If we don’t raise our children, society degrades or ends. So the community has a reason to encourage both the birth of children and their proper raising. This encouragement is called “marriage.”

We have added all sorts of other cultural and legal trappings, but at its root, this is the reason the government has anything to do with marriage at all. If it were not for children, marriage would be an entirely private and personal event. There could be no objection to same-sex marriage.

But society as a whole, and therefore the government, has a reason to regulate the procreation and raising of children. If your sex life is not directed toward having children, or is incapable of having children, then the government has no reason to regulate it. That is, no reason for marriage.

(This is, by the way, the reason the State has anything to do with adoption, as well.)

So there are good reasons, scientific and political, that opposition to same-sex marriage is not the same thing as prejudice or hate against homosexual people. I don’t deny that there are plenty of bigots out there; and I have heard logical (if not conclusive) arguments that same-sex marriage doesn’t harm traditional marriage, and so should be allowed anyway. But my point is that opposition to same-sex marriage is not inherently bigoted or prejudicial.

Finally, none of these arguments are based on religion in any way. They are arguments based on experience and science and reason. You may disagree with the argument, or with the conclusions that some draw from them. Fine. But argue with them on the same basis: science, reason, experience.

Your talking nonsense. I mean really nonsense. The State right now sanctions catholic marriages, and jewish ones, are the catholics religious liberty being threatened then because the state recognizes a wedding not in jesus christ’s name? How is this so hard for you to understand?

No, it is extremely relevant. You can’t just plug your ears and scream “no no no” when someone points out that your arguments mean that allowing one group to claim a religious belief should allow them to discriminate against one group, thus means another person can do it for a different group. So if you think your religion means you can not serve gay people in your business, that means another person can say their religion means they don’t have to serve black people in theirs. YOU are not special!

Now try looking up the definition of “pig-ignorant troll.”

The difference is that when the church performs a heterosexual marriage ceremony, the ordained minister is then able to sign a marriage license and after the signage and the ceremony, the couple is legally married. The church, that is for same-sex marriage, is not legally able to provide that same service to a same-sex couple.

The Catholic Church will not marry anyone who was previously divorced (except under special circumstances). Using your argument: If churches want to perform marriages for divorced people they can. That is different from the state sanctioning them. But if the state does sanction them and a church refuses to perform them based upon religious beliefs, that is when religious liberty is threatened.

Why don’t you provide some examples of the Catholic Church being forced to provide a marriage ceremony for divorced people?

I’m perfectly fine with being bigoted against anti-gay bigotry.  At least I’ve never advocated for Christians to be tortured, imprisoned, cured by rape (per what happens to many lgbt people upon coming out) or otherwise harmed.

Why can’t marriage be that word? I know some gay couples who are raising a family, own a home together, work through life together, love each other and their families. They fit every part of the definition of the words marriage and family, and yet you say they are not married. You say it doesn’t count. Well, fuck you. They do count.

I don’t struggle with being bisexual. I struggle with the idiots who hate me because of it.

 This is what happens when typing while holding a 4 month old baby…

Do you have an edit function? I could swear that your second paragraph wasn’t there ten minutes ago. Or did I just completely overlook it?

If edit, could you let me in on your secret?

 I’m not specifically replying to you kraken17 but the definition of marriage really is the issue.

I think Hemant’s rant misses the point because if restricting any group of people from anything implies bigotry, name-calling, etc then Hemant himself is a bigot, hater, etc if he for instance is against me marrying my daughter.  Spare the incest and genetic responses because let’s just say I don’t really care about that.  Or how about me marrying my daughter, mother and uncle Frank.

I realize you’ll think these silly and so do I but if marriage is not something that is part of any kind of design or natural order as Christians would argue, then why does it have to be between one man and one woman or one woman and one woman or one man and one man.

Discrimination is everywhere in the sense of society making distinctions.  Hemant mentions we must have “rational reasons” for our distinctions and I agree but what’s the basis for a rational reason when we get to define what we want the way we want it.

Hemant doesn’t help the discussion by endorsing the name calling.  That’s childish and immature at best and hardly “friendly”.

I stopped reading at this:  “The sexual organs have reproduction as their primary purpose.”

No, reproduction is not their primary purpose. You could argue that the uterus’ primary purpose is reproduction (as that’s basically all it does). But sexual organs have many purposes. In fact, most people ignore the fact that the purpose they are used for the most is for removing waste (i.e. pooping and peeing). My sexual organs have many purposes. The primary purpose is decided by me, not other people. If I decide right now that the primary purpose of my sexual organs is for pleasure, than I can masturbate. If I need to pee then the primary purpose is for expelling waste from my body. If, at some point in the future, I decide to get pregnant, then the primary purpose will be for reproduction. Seeing as how the vast majority of humans use their sexual organs most of the time for purposes other than reproduction–reproduction is obviously not their primary purpose.

Besides all that: we don’t deny infertile couples the right to marry. We don’t deny couple who don’t want kids the right to marry. We don’t deny elderly couples the right to marry. Why is this any different for gay couples? Are we going to start outlawing all marriages and uses of sexual organs that don’t result in reproduction? No? Then your argument is stupid and ignorant.

Agreed. Fred is one of the few sane christians I know of. 

Well, the one big point to me is that I don’t want my money going to activities that personally harm me. 

If you also hold that view, a personal boycott makes sense. 

This. My fiance is trying to change my idea on the matter, but…

Hyperbole, much? Nobody is physically attacking CFA people. Nobody is burning down their buildings. A bunch of people on the internet are SAYING WORDS. 

Get a grip. 

So it’s only okay for people to speak when they agree with your position? 

Also, you might want to look up the definition of censorship. Nobody is being forcefully shut up or prevented from speaking their views. Nobody is being punished for what they’re saying. People reacting to what you say is not punishment, nor is it any form of censorship. 

Also, I bet you don’t consider it wrong when the Left says something and people on the Right have this kind of reaction. It’s rather funny how the Right is completely hypocritical in matters such as this; it’s only a “violation” of your rights when people react to a cause you agree with.

So politicians banning abortion is censorship? Politicians attempting to ban women’s health care is censorship? Politicians trying to obstruct Obamacare because people believe that it’s socialism is censorship?

“But society as a whole, and therefore the government, has a reason to
regulate the procreation and raising of children. If your sex life is
not directed toward having children, or is incapable of having children,
then the government has no reason to regulate it. That is, no reason
for marriage.”

So how is the government regulating unwed parents? Your arguments are valid for creating a license for parenting, not marriage.

They must be struggling, otherwise they wouldn’t need all this “loving” christian attention.

The fact that, in men, the digestive and reproductive systems share part of a channel does not mean that they are the same bodily system.

The fact that scientists call it the “reproductive” system shows that they generally accept reproduction as its primary purpose.

As to infertility, unless we take action to make ourselves infertile, it is impossible to predict whether a couple will be infertile or not. Nor do we know what kind of infertility treatments might result from further research. So I would be very reluctant to label a male-female couple “infertile” and deny them the opportunity.

Moreover, no one is saying that marriage is only about procreation; simply that procreation is essential to marriage. If it were not, why would the government get involved at all?

Not so much that “gay people don’t need to get married” as that the government has no reason to define or regulate or encourage the sex lives of gay people.

You seem to feel that being gay is not a natural variant in the biology of humans, like race is.  Many would disagree with you. 

Marriage is not a legal union based on a sexual relationship, it’s one based on a loving relationship.

You also believe that the expansion of the definition of marriage will be detrimental to society.  Many would disagree with you here also.   To focus on your children argument, traditional marriages can still exist while new ones (same-sex) that also provide stable and loving support for children are encouraged and treated fairly.  Why wouldn’t anyone, including the government, endorse this?

I must admit thought that you’ve obviously put a lot of thought and effort into justifying your bigotry.

Do you mean the Appeal to Nature? I don’t regard this as necessarily a fallacy.

The middle term in the argument is: It is good for a thing to be itself, rather than to try to be something it is not; that is, it is good to fulfill one’s nature.

You can dispute the appeal, (and many have done so,)but I don’t know what else you could look to as a basis for morality or legality.

On the other hand, if you “don’t give a flying rat’s ass about biology,” then what do you care about?

Re: infertility – I’m not talking about dissolving a marriage; I’m talking about entering into one in the first place. So I’m looking for cases where the courts have entirely and explicitly rejected procreation as an essential aspect of marriage.

I assume there are such cases; I just don’t know what they are. I’m interested in learning about them.

That said, I don’t allow the courts to dictate right and wrong, truth and falsehood to me. Courts have decided that slavery is A-OK, and that evolution is bunk. I’m not going to take their word for it.

Marriage is not part of any natural order. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. Marriage is a social construct, that’s all. It serves various social purposes, such as maintaining property lines, providing a legal mechanism to ensure child care, providing a connection between families, etc. The relative importance of these purposes has changed over time, and remains quite different across different extant cultures. Not all societies have or have had legal marriage. Where marriage has existed as a legal structure, it has consisted of one man to one woman, one man to many women, one woman to many men, one man to one man, one woman to one woman, children to children, and adults to children. The Catholics recognize marriage between a woman and a mythological character.

You cannot marry your daughter because there are laws against your having a marital-type relationship with your daughter. If you can make a case for changing those laws, then you should be able to marry her. There are no laws against homosexuals having marital-type relationships, so preventing these people from gaining the benefits of marriage that the state recognizes is irrational, and by the standards of most people, unfair.

A person who opposes same-sex marriage seeks to limit the freedoms of other people despite the fact that the exercise of those freedoms in no way impacts their own freedom. That is unreasonable. If you ask that a subpopulation be treated differently than others, and can’t justify it by any material standard, that’s discrimination. People who are discriminatory in this way are bigots. That isn’t name calling, it’s just stating a fact.

Did you entirely overlook where I said, explictly, that differences in sexual orientation do seem to be a normal variation in the species? That’s not the point.

Did I ever say that expanding marriage to same-sex couples would be detrimental to society? Some make that argument, and some oppose it. I am not making that argument here.

All I am saying is that opposition to same-sex marriage is not necessarily or inherently bigoted or prejudicial.

I agree. Nothing else i could add to this.

Robert King is committing the naturalistic fallacy.  He is creating an ought (Governments ought to regulate against gay marriage) from an is (the primary purpose of the sex organs are reproduction).  This kind of argument has a hidden premise which we should make moral and political judgements based on the truths about biology.  This argument is as good as the argument that since women are typically physically weaker then men, it means that men should always lift things for women.  This argument seems obviously wrong to me because I haven’t been given any good reason to accept that the typically physical status of women should have any bearing on who should always lift things.

Furthermore, marriage is a complicated cultural institution that has served different purposes at different times.  Any definition of marriage is going to be pretty arbitrary.  If we are going to have a definition of marriage it seems to me that we should have a definition that discriminates against the fewest number of people while at the same time harming the fewest number of people.

In conclusion, there is no good reason to not allow gay marriage and these arguments from biology are usually a scientific mask for bigotry similar to the scientific racism that occurred in previous times.

OK, Hemant, you’ve won.  Your argument is persuasive.  I will no longer remain totally apolitical on FB, but I will post my feelings in support of LGBT rights.  This may make a few friends unfriend me… but it will allow me to be honest, not silent.

You haven’t looked very hard. Merriam-Webster includes “the state of being united to a person of the same sex”. The OED includes “a formal union between partners of the same sex”. The Free Dictionary includes “the legal union… between two persons of the same sex”.

In fact, I couldn’t find a dictionary that doesn’t include same-sex unions within the definition of “marriage”. I’d say the definition has already been expanded, particularly given the number of jurisdictions around the world, and even in the U.S., that recognize marriage between same-sex partners.

C Peterson…that wasn’t my point! It was that the definition of the word “marriage” is not religious. But you are absolutely right.

If it’s not about sex, then why do we limit it to couples in sexual relationships?

Also, why the jab at Christians? I find more obsession with sex on TV and in romance novels than I ever have in the various religions I’ve studied.

You rock. Good luck!

Yep…that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. I got caught up in being clever. I think I’m on sensory overload from all this flap.

I know this is going to make a lot of people mad but what will people want next? Beastiality. Will you then be a bigot if someone wack job wants to marry your family pet? He says, “I’m in love!” What would you say about that? How about the people who are “in love” with their car? This isn’t a joke, I’m dead serious. God gave man woman for a reason! LIFE! God said, be fruitful and multiply! You can call me a bigot all day long if you want, I stand for what is right. Just because it is widely accepted in today’s society doesn’t make it any more okay. Don’t get me wrong I do not hate anyone, I care very much for everyone. I don’t want to see anyone put eternity in jeapordy. Remember this, every sin is forgivable if you accept Christ as your savior. The only unforgivable sin without Christ is blasphemy. It’s not too late to give up selfish desires, accept Christ and repent and you shall receive the Kindom of Heaven.

*headdesk*

Does your god say anything about terminal stupidity?

Maybe you haven’t found any that convince you, because you aren’t gay.  Sometimes it takes living in the shoes of a targeted group, before you understand what they go through.

If you would argue that the legal benefits are only “part” of what marriage is for, then you are admitting that there are OTHER parts that exceed the narrow definition of parenting.  Even you allowed “among other things”.  You can’t halt this discussion at the single issue of procreation, while there are still “other things” to take into consideration.  If marriage is contingent on multiple factors, then those other factors need to be taken into account when denying the right of marriage.  You can’t deny it based on ONE factor, if it’s granted based on MANY factors.

Those “other factors” are very important, not just to gay couples but to ALL couples, with or without children.  Sure, we could go from specialty lawyer to specialty lawyer, signing contract after contract to try to match the coverage provided by the government.  But that’s a hell of a lot more expensive than just buying one marriage license.  And those contracts may not be portable from state to state.  And they certainly don’t cover Federal benefits.  And they might be contested by greedy family members after the death of one partner.  People who can marry don’t have to deal with ANY of this.

 You say that if it weren’t for children, there would be no point in the social benefits associated with marriage.  But many gay couples DO raise children.  What does marriage do for heterosexual couples raising children, that it WON’T do for homosexual couples raising children?  In what way are these rights important for straight couples, but unimportant for gay couples?

It’s interesting how the fundamentalists keep complaining about being “silenced”.  It seems to me, they never shut up!

Re: For thousands of years, the term marriage refers to the act of a man and woman committing their lives to each other exclusively and if they so choose they could procreate.

Uh, no. In reality, “for thousand of years,” marriage meant any number of different things. It meant one husband and many wives. It meant one husband, a few wives, and some concubines on the side. There have been marriages to unite families, marriages to create political alliances, marriages which followed from military conquests, marriages intended to prevent military conquests. There have been marriages for love, and marriages for convenience. And on and on and on it goes.

People are quick to claim there is only one “definition of ‘marriage’,” but history demonstrates it’s just not true. Marriages have come in many forms, they’ve served many purposes, and marriage itself has morphed a great deal over the last few thousand years.

Romans 2: 14-16
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

This was so interesting I nearly read half the comments on the original post. It really reminds me why I dislike organized religion so much. I don’t discount the possibility of a higher power, but I don’t agree with an institution that has been passed down for thousands of years, only to be twisted and filled with prejudice by the cold hearts of those less tolerant.

S. Truett Cathy is the perfect example. He may not be a Christian leader, but a damn good chicken sandwich can make a lot of people listen, especially if your faith is summed up in to one word, “Christian”, like his. People are flocking into his restaurants because they agree with his views, but he’s using that authority to take their money and give it to special interest groups (that’s right, the company’s money, not his).

Christians are more or less educated by the church to not ask the tough questions. Questioning “God’s” teachings is considered a sin. However, it’s pretty safe to assume that other shady people like Cathy have had a chance to sway the followers of one of the world’s archaic religions, whether it be to create new beliefs or reinforce old ones. Can you honestly believe that the Gospel has remained untainted by, for lack of a better word, the greasy fingers of wealthy bigots and opinionated religious leaders?

I see many have responded to my initial post.  Well, I haven’t the time to keep up with the responses.  Let me sum up.  To those who condemned such obvious Orwellian heavy handed examples of censorship and thought crime punishment – well done.  Bravo.  But I’ve noticed that not a few, while saying they opposed such things as a mayor attempting some good old freedom ending puritanical intolerance, there are many who seem to get upset with the idea that the thing they oppose is being called what it is.  Plus, there’s not nearly enough condemnation of those within the left/liberal/gay community who aer jumping up and down and yelling for more thought control.  I notice when Fred Phelps and his ilk come out of whatever floor boards they hide beneath, you would have to get tickets to shout him down from the religious community.  I mean, religious leaders of every stripe – even if they aren’t Christian, but especially if they are – come out and smack him down and any like him by the boat load.  Not ‘buts’, no ‘howevers’, just simple condemnation.  They may have other opinions on issues, but the make sure their condemnation of his deplorable tactics are heard, and undeniable.  That’s what I would like.  Sure, there are differing views on this issue.  And yes, the Left seems ever eager to portray those who don’t conform to liberalism’s dogmas as hate and evil, but still, it wouldn’t hurt this one time to let the focus be where everyone sees it should be: a naked attempt by elected officials to invoke censorship because they seem to think someone in the LGBT community is wanting that very action to take place.  Make it known, make it clear.  Then folks may be a little more inclined to believe you when you say 90% of everyone has condemned this, and without the requisite qualifiers. 

You compare love between consenting adults with bonking the family pet, yet you want to pretend you aren’t a bigot?  Get real. 

You can’t tell the difference between loving relationships between consenting adults and predation on children, animals or inanimate objects which clearly cannot give consent.   Your morals are clearly twisted and you probably shouldn’t be allowed in the general population.

Cherry picking from 
thousands year old scripture as a guide to morality is not ‘rational’.
Please don’t expect us rational people to follow your delusion.

 Christians do not own marriage.  If you don’t want to give your blessings to our marriages you don’t have to, but you don’t have the right to deny other people rights just because your chosen religious beliefs say something is wrong.  

 “rational basis”. It does not mean what you think it means

Ah. I think the problem lies in assuming that sex and marriage are inextricably linked. It would seem to exclude asexual couples, or those who cannot or choose not to have sex for any number of reasons. While lack of sex is certainly used as a reason for ending a marriage, I’ve never heard of anyone checking up on newly weds to make sure they’re getting it on.

 It’s funny how this effective treatment you speak of has been decried by basically every major medical professional organization in the world.

 New Mexico doesn’t have legal same-sex marriage.  They do, however, have anti-discrimination laws.  That photographer would have been sued had she refused to  work for a Jew, a black person, someone with autism, or a Catholic.  You guys like to throw this case out as “evidence” that legal same-sex marriage threatens “religious freedom” but it has nothing to do with either.  It’s about the fact that people can’t run a business and refuse to serve people based on their personal bigotries because anti-discrimination laws exist. 

No “church” in NJ was forced to open its facilities for a same-sex wedding.  NJ has Civil Unions, not marriage.  Furthermore, it wasn’t a church but a boardwalk pavilion (Ocean Grove Pavilion) that was owned by a church but open to the public in exchange for substantial tax breaks.  Until a lesbian couple asked to rent it for their ceremony the church had no issue renting it out to anybody and everybody who came along.   Then they tried to play the “religious beliefs” card and they were, rightfully, sued.  Again this was an issue of anti-discrimination laws and not same-sex marriage or religious liberty.  The church wanted to take the tax breaks but then also wanted to disobey the law when they chose.  That’s not how it works. 

No church in the US ever has been or ever will be forced to marry anybody.  Churches refuse all the time to marry couples they don’t want to.  Just recently a church in Mississippi refused to marry a couple because the couple was black.  This BS about churches being “forced” to marry gay couples is just more fearmongering to whip the voters into a frenzy so they deny LGBT people equal rights.

Sweden isn’t the USA so nothing that happens there applies here.

 It’s nice we live in a constitutional republic and not a theocracy, isn’t it?

 Were you this concerned when Obama spoke out in favor of marriage equality, and got a shit storm of rage in response from anti-gay bigots (many of whom were government officials/politicians)?

I’m tired of these LGBT people with their “You’re either with us or against,” crap. i honestly dont care what happens with the gay marriage debate. if they can marry,fine. if they can’t, fine with me.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. That means they describe how words are used, rather than giving instruction on how to use a word. Definitions and, therefore, dictionaries, change over time. Queer used to be a perfectly cromulent word, appropriately used to mean “strange or weird.” It doesn’t have that definition anymore, in English. It has, over the last 100 years or so, evolved into a slur, and contemporary dictionaries will reflect this change, while a dictionary written around the time of _Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland_ or _The Wizard of Oz_ (two books off the top of my head that I know use the word) will have the older definition.

Language changes as we change.

Re: Where in anything I said did I order anyone to believe in what I believe?

When you told us what would happen to us if we dared refuse your orders:

I don’t want to see anyone put eternity in jeapordy. Remember this, every sin is forgivable if you accept Christ as your savior. The only unforgivable sin without Christ is blasphemy. It’s not too late to give up selfish desires, accept Christ and repent and you shall receive the Kindom of Heaven.

The meaning of this is clear to me. If it’s not clear to you, that’s not my problem … it’s yours. They’re your words, not mine. Take responsibility for them.

I simply stated my beliefs.

Uh, no. You didn’t just stop at telling us your beliefs. You told us we’d be tormented for eternity if we defied your beliefs. That is NOT the same thing as merely stating what you believe.

The definition of a bigot is what? Look it up.

Look it up for yourself. I don’t have time to educate Bible-thumping, doom-propounding Christianists. There are free dictionaries on the Internet … use one.

t’s okay for a non-believer to be able to express their views and opinions but when a Christian does it we are bigoted because we don’t accept your values.

Again, that is NOT what you did. You did much more than that. You instructed us to believe as you do because we’d be tormented eternally if we defied you and your God.

I guess it takes one to know one.

I have no idea what that means. Obviously you didn’t actually pay attention to what I said. Is that because I’m an insolent, cynical, skeptical, godless agnostic heathen? You think you don’t have to pay attention to my words? You can just rail back at me with your paranoiac metaphysics, without bothering to digest what I said?

I know your religionism has infantilized you, but really, I don’t have time for these childish games, your accusations that have no basis in reality, and your bellicose whining that there are people in the world who dare defy you and your God. Some of us can and will do so. Don’t like it? Too bad.

“but no one’s taking away their rights. No one’s forcing gay marriage in their church. No one’s asking them to attend a gay wedding against their will.”

No, but they are forced to pay for government funded abortions with their tax dollars, which is against their belief system.

I think no liberal enjoys a conservative calling them a baby killer, or against the rites of babies. They would claim it is not about that with abortion, it is about protecting the rites of the mother. Well if you are going to take that stance, then it is only fair to realize that the conservatives view is not anti-gay, it is about protecting the sanctity of marriage. Something you say their is no rational argument for (what is the rational argument against, “everyone straight has it”? Mabe they shouldn’t. 50% of people get divorced. Just because it is a true statement doesn’t mean it is a rational argument), well most religions, followed by billions of people, for thousands of years have clearly defined marriage between a man and woman. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t just claim it is illegitimate and unreasonable becauseyou disagree and it doesn’t serve your goal.

I am a republican, and I am for gay marriage. I wouldn’t want to not be able to have the same rites as someone else, just because I have a different sexual preference. This is th same reason I am anti-abortion. While I think forcing a mother into an unwanted pregnancy is a horrible violation of her freedom…it is the lesser of two evils, as depriving a child of a life and giving them no say in the matter is the greatest violation of freedom that could exist.

The only way we are ever going to be able to come to agreement, is if we can objectively look at the views of others, respect them like we expect our own, and if we actually try to understand them. When you present their pro defined movement of marriage, as “anti-gay”, then you better be presenting your case for abortion not as “pro-life”, but as “anti-baby”. You have to have moral consistency in the way you approach your arguments. Unfortunately many, like this author, choose to depict movements they don’t agree with as hateful, and despite wanting people to be tolerant of views of others, they throw around the word “bigot”, like that is an ok thing to do.

Your friend sounds like a nice person, who is tolerant of the views of others, but has her own, and asks that you respect them like she does yours, and you call her a bigot and write an article that reeks of moral superiority. There are plenty of bigots in this world (many of them liberals believe it or not. And yes, affirmative action IS racist. Any act that favors one group over another is discrimination. Reverse discrimination doesn’t make it ok, but you want to believe it is, and rationalize it, because…it’s what you believe, so the rules for morality change), your friend is not a bigot. She like the majority of christians, are accepting, and forgiving people, who happen to live their lifes by a culture and codes that they believe to be sacred, and have for thousands of years, and one of those is marriage, which has been defined for them as between a man and a woman. You friend did her best to be respectful, and tolerant of the views of others, and made an impassioned plea to stop having random people accuse her of being a hateful bigot just because she had a different belief system. I wonder if she knew it would actually be a friend of hers that would be calling her a bigot.  

 Read and learn.  Marriage hasn’t been “one man/one woman for thousands of years”.
http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article25.htm

And abortion isn’t paid for by your tax dollars, but churches are subsidized by mine so maybe you should stop your whining about being “forced to pay for things you don’t believe in”.   We all pay for stuff we don’t approve of.  It’s called being a grownup in a civilized society.  Give it a try sometime.

We must modify our language when it comes to civil rights. Qualifying those whose rights are being denied as gay people, immigrants, black people or whatever, diminishes what they are: people. That is the bottom line, they are PEOPLE. Adding the qualifier opens the the door to “why”, “excuses”, and (I use the world reluctantly) “reasons”. Allowing the qualifier almost validates the argument of those who choose to deny the rights they posses for no other advantage than being alive, by acknowledging their prejudices.

Please don’t lump all Christians together. We don’t all oppose gay rights. The united church of Christ has supported marriage equality for years. There are a lot like us out there, but our voices aren’t as loud

It’s as if they truly think that everyone will suddenly turn gay and stop having children. Otherwise that “argument” makes no sense whatsoever.

If they think being gay is so tempting that everyone will go for it, that says a lot more about themselves

 There’s a perfectly legitimate reason to boycott CFA and other businesses that choose to donate to anti-gay causes.  By doing so we help avoid funding our own oppression.  Why should we give money to corporations that are merely going to use it to harm us?

I am so sorry that is the kind of Christianity you have been exposed to.

 “I specifically said that would be the next step and mentioned the New
Jersey case as an example of where this will come from.  Your points
prove it. Yes this park was owned by the church and yes they opened it
to the public and yes they received a tax exemption on it because it was
a religious facility”

No, they didn’t receive a tax break because it was a religious facility.  They received a tax break in exchange for opening the pavilion up to the public.  In doing so they made themselves subject to state anti-discrimination laws.  If they didn’t want to obey the laws they could have kept the pavilion private, though naturally they wouldn’t have received the tax break.

“Churches are also open to the public and  they receive tax exemptions.”

Churches are tax-exempt by virtue of the fact that they are churches but they are private property. They are not “open to the public” in the same sense as a business.  A person cannot just walk in and demand the church host their wedding, funeral, baptism or other event.  A church can refuse anybody who doesn’t meet their criteria (wrong faith, not a member, not a member in good standing, didn’t tithe enough, interfaith marriage, didn’t go to confession enough, etc).  They have never been and never will be sued for refusing to marry anybody, despite all of the lying by people like yourself.

 “marriage”–you keep using that word, but I don’t think you know what it really means, especially in a historical and cultural context.

Translation: “Waaaaah!”

I’d suggest the same to you, but the glass would get confused by the reflected irony.

Huge difference between interracial marriage and so-called ‘gay marriage:’ Black men/women who marry white men/women (example) all bleed red blood and can still biologically produce children. Most naturally and without biological/medical intervention. Gays/lesbians can’t produce children without that intervention because it is against laws of nature.

 The definition of marriage straight from Webster’s Dictionary:

Marriage

a (1) :
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or
wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

So according to a well established, English dictionary, there are multiple meanings of the word “marriage” . That you and others like you want to cling to one narrow definition of the word, and claim that’s the ONLY  correct definition and it’s some how set in stone is just ludicrous.

The meanings of word change over time. That’s just how language works. Sorry if you don’t like that.

You and your ilk keep missing the obvious lesson. Theists have a right to express their views, and so do atheists. NO ONE, including you, has a right to not be criticized for those views. Why is it when you post nonsense and you get smacked down for it (with logic and reason of course), you start to wail like a spoiled brat who was told that they couldn’t have the toy they wanted right now?

It’s perfectly fair to turn the tables by the way. By all means come at us with all the logic and reason at your disposal. Most atheists are also skeptics, so if you have a sound argument, you do have a chance of swaying us. That’s a far cry from what WE have to contend with. We present solid, reasoned, sensible arguments as to why theists and bigots are wrong, and they retreat into Holy Book passages and “You need Jesus.” I suppose it shouldn’t be astonishing how theists categorically refuse to ever admit they’re wrong — doing so would totally screw up your world.

I’ll help. Churches are tax exempt. That means the tax burden that churches should shoulder, their fair share, is shifted to the rest of society. Society of course includes everyone who pays taxes, including atheists and those with no religious affiliation.

That is beside the point. The same arguments that people are giving against gays marrying are the same arguments people were giving against interracial marriage. 

The ability to have children is irrelevant. A young married couple could choose not to have children. An elderly married couple cannot have children. 

“Most naturally and without biological/medical intervention.”

What about the ones that can’t? Since they can’t “produce children” without intervention, and they want children, is it also “against the laws of nature”? 

Dear Mr. Mehta,

I want to apologize for my previous comment from this afternoon. I wrote out of anger and not love. Immediately after I posted it, I got in the car. The first thing I heard on the radio was a pastor discussing 2 Timothy 2:14-16 about how Christians should not get involved in useless debate and “wrangling about words.” This is what I was doing. If anything, I suppose my comment would only drive people further from God, not at all my desire.I understand that you believe homosexuality is okay because you do not know God, and I applaud your desire to stand up for what you believe are the rights of your fellow humans. Perhaps God will have mercy on you and open your eyes, but my angrily quoting scripture is probably not helpful.
Therefore, I am apologizing, and ask for your forgiveness.

You are sadly confused about what the Bible says about marriage. In Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” not he will be united with his wives. Though many people in the Bible had numerous wives and concubines that does not mean that God approved of this situation. 

Sorry Bill, you’re spreading lots of ignorance here.  You REALLY need to watch this (and so should everyone):

<a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzUFYNjUTcM"It's all about children (or at least the anatomical possibility thereof)"

I found your reply very sad. You grew up around people who claim Christianity, but only treated it as a restraint system and you became one. I am a Christian, I have been my entire life. But it is only recently that I really began to discover God and have a relationship with Him.
 Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster
as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the
members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance. 
I do not hold any hate in my heart, nor intolerance. I say let them be gay. If they are gay, they cannot be true Christians because this direct opposition to the Word and the Law of God would be weeded out through a study of their beliefs and a reflection on God himself, thus if they are gay they are not justified anyway. If only I could make you understand what that implies, but that is not my job. My only job is to report to you the truth. You will do what it what you will.

It’s all about children (or at least the anatomical possibility thereof)

Even if the encouragement of procreation were a legitimate government interest, denying marriage to gay couples does nothing to protect or encourage straight couples.

You nailed it, Stev84

I’d like to point out that noone enjoys persecution. Christians are just warned beforehand that we will be persecuted. The Bible is not hate-mongering, we are called to love our neighbor, how is that hate? Since when is disagreeing hate? When you mom told you bedtime was 9, and you thought it should be 12 did you hate her? No. You disagreed.
Herein, lies the difference. Christians are called to be set apart, we know we will sin, but we know that when we mess up we can repent and God forviges us, even if we don’t deserve it (trust me, I know I don’t).
Growing up in a “Christian” community  does not make you a Christian. Even the Devil knows God’s word and believes it. The difference between us and him is that we trust in God to lead our lives. He is the one we look to with everything. When God says, “A man should not lie with a man as he would with a woman.” (Leviticus 18:22) I believe in His law. I resign my heart to follow His law and wish the same for you, but if you choose to not follow His law, that is your choice.  I will not persecute you for it, I will sit quietly by and continue living my life. But I must speak truth, so here I am at 1 in the morning when I should be sleeping because I so want you all to understand the truth about what Christians believe so you can make an educated choice at least.

So I’m writing as a Christian who is deeply, deeply trouble with how many Christians have treated the LGBTQ community.

I honestly think a lot of the problem comes from a disagreement of what *marriage* is.  If marriage is only a legal right, then in my mind, there really is no justifiable means of not having nationwide same-sex marriage.  It boils down to dignity, respect, worth, and treating each other fairly (though I’m sure there would still be far too many people who would be against it, sadly). 

However, I think for many people, marriage is seen as a religious event.  In the Catholic church, marriage is seen as a sacrament – it is an act of worshiping God (let’s save the talk about hypocrisy for another day… it really doesn’t add or subtract to what I’m trying to get at here).  Now, I’m well aware of that there are a lot of problems with this belief, and I’m well aware that marriage traditionally has not always been religious… but for better or worse, for many people it is intimately tied to their faith.  If these people believe that their Scriptures teach that marriage is between a man and woman, you have to understand how government dictating what marriage is or isn’t can be seen as a violation of religious freedom and violating the First Amendment.

I think on for many it is seen as a legal issue.  On many others its seen as a religious issue. Both are trying to fight for their rights and freedom.

I appreciate your thoughtful dialogue Hermant, but I guess I really do think there are more than two-sides to this issue.  I think simply boiling it down to an “us vs. them” fight is kind of unfair to the many other ideas that are out there, some of them bigoted, others not, and still others that are just very confused and contradicted.

My personal view is that the government shouldn’t even be involved with “marriage”.  It should just get out altogether – heterosexual or same-sex.  It has no place in government.  By doing this, each faith community could practice marriage as they see fit… and there are some faith bodies who do recognize and welcome same-sex marriage and partnerships.  

But at the same time, the government MUST, MUST make sure that all couple receive same, legal rights.  Call it civil unions or whatever you want.  But the legal recognition, protection, and opportunity that are provided for heterosexual couples must be provided also for same-sex couples.  It is unjustifiable, in my view, the rights that LBGTQ communities 

So I have no idea what that belief makes me.  I guess I do feel somewhat in the middle, someone who is fighting for gay rights, but that doesn’t necessarily see same-sex marriage as the be-all, end-all solution.

Also, for what it’s worth, I think the Marin Foundation is something that is very needed.  I kind of dig them.  Anyways, thanks for sharing, and allowing me to share too.  I know I might be in for some rough feedback, but try to be kind…

 I do not fear the LGBT community. This change means that society is telling our children that it is okay to do these things when we are telling them (and more importantly God is telling them) that it is not. You may think that our children should be smart enough to make the decision themselves, they are not. Young people are easily impressed upon by their peers.
You mistake the fact that Christians disagree with the world as “fear” or “hate” but it’s simply what we already have come to expect. While you think it will have no effect on us, you are wrong. It has a strong effect on us (Christians) and our children, and that is something I cannot tolerate. If you do not want me forcing my beliefs on you, don’t expect to be able to enforce your beliefs (yes, that’s what they are) on me.

It’s really pointless to bother the troll with facts. He’s heard them before and has decided to ignore them because they’re inconvenient for his thesis.

I disagree with your interpretation, but it doesn’t matter since even more than that, I don’t believe in your god at all. The opinion of a fictional being invented by primitive tribesmen has no bearing on how we legally recognize families in a modern secular state.

then what about when the bible commands a raped woman to be married to her rapist?

No, it doesn’t, but the fact of the matter is that Yahweh didn’t often hesitate to take out his wrath on people whose actions he didn’t approve of, like Onan not fulfilling the duties of the Levirate marriage to Tamar. And it happened a lot. If God didn’t approve, he sure didn’t make it clear and allowed many of the patriarchs to go along with it. (Knocks some nice-sized holes in your theology, eh?)

It is not about hate. Scripture is quite clear on the matter: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (First Corinthians 6:9-10)

Dear, that is utterly irrevelant to the issue of civil marriage.

What, for Pete’s sake, is SO hard about understanding that very simple fact for some of you?

*mind boggled*

Marriage is a term created by the church…
if they want the right to have a legal civil union thats one thing 
however lgbt unions will never be considered an actual marriage in the eyes of the church so this argument is pointless 
btw he’s been one of the biggest contributors against gay marriage for a long time and now people are barley pretending to give a shit? 
give a a fkn break!

I’d not hesitate to call Rachel a friend either, except I don’t know her well enough. She’s smart, friendly, compassionate and with her heart in the right place.

But she’s trying to do the impossible. People and institutions who oppose giving a marginalized group the same rights the rest of us enjoy, are, infact, to blame for this.

If you go around arguing that black people should not be allowed to vote, you are infact a racist no matter how many of your friends are black. If you go around arguing that women should not be barred from priesthood, you are infact sexist.

And if you argue that homosexuals should not be given exactly the same rights heterosexual people enjoy, then you are infact a homophobe. 

Rachel is aware of that (she’s smart, remember ?) That’s why she posted this: http://rachelheldevans.com/out-of-step-religious-community

“I am hanging by the tips of sweaty fingers on this ledge of faith,
wondering if letting go will bring freedom or death. I’ve hung on
before—through the science wars, the gender wars, the Christmas wars,
the culture wars—but I’m just so tired of fighting, so tired of feeling out of place. ”

Ofcourse *we* know that letting go, brings freedom, not death, but I can totally understand that it’s a scary place to be in for someone who doesn’t know if there’s feathers or rocks at the base of the cliff.

Rachel decides to “hold on…at least for another day. ”

If the day comes when she decides to let go, I hope we’ll all do our best to make her landing a soft one. That doesn’t apply just to her, but indeed to all the people who have been let down and made to feel “out of place” by the bigotry and hatred of organized religion.

This is and has always been a simple distinction to make: consenting adults. If you’re an adult and your daughter is an adult and you both consent to the marriage, it may not be popular but I say it should be legal. With bestiality and pedophilia (as the slippery slope so often falls to), those participating are not consenting adults. The law is reason without passion, opinion, bias, or religion. What is distasteful to you or your chosen deity has nothing to do with what the law should be.

“Though many people in the Bible had numerous wives and concubines that does not mean that God approved of this situation.”

Try 2 Samuel 12:7-12. 

 Do your research, being gay is not a choise, no matter what lies you’ve been told.

The difference is that you believe you’ve got the direct pipeline to God and know what God wants and expect everybody else to defer to your superior discernment and judgment. But (and I’m just speculating here), I don’t think you have anymore direct experience of God than anyone else. So it’s a little presumptuous for you to justify your own prejudices and saying “well, I can’t be held responsible, I was just following God’s orders!”

Jesus says in Luke 14:26 that his followers have to hate everybody, anyway, so I don’t see why you’re so quick to make excuses for yourself.

Hear, hear.

“Would you like a portion of this purchase to go towards lobbying in favor of legal measures to discriminate against you?”

“Um…no, actually I wouldn’t! Please check that box ‘no’!”

Or just leave incendiary language like “bigoted” out of it altogether.

If you’re so convinced you “deserve Hell” does that mean you’ll turn down Heaven if it’s offered to you?

+ a million.

“Here’s a token so I can social-signal how high status I am.”

I find that the biggest error was using a religious term as a legal term to denote a legal union between two people. Religious folks refuse to give up the word to same sex individuals as Christians see it. This would be solved by deeming all legal marriages civil unions, be it same sex or hetero….then those who want a “marriage” obtain it from a religious institution, after they obtain a civil union certificate….just my thought. There has yet to be a law that approaches the issue from this angle. It would equally apply of all persons and not be discriminatory, and all civil unions would enjoy the privileges. Meanwhile, those in civil union may have a religious marriage ceremony, thus keeping their beloved “marriage”obtain within the church w/o screwing a group of people.

They don’t know the difference between people posting blog comments that disapprove of you, and people passing laws that disapprove of you.

 Black men/women who marry white men/women (example) all bleed red blood and can still biologically produce children.

Same as gay people then.

Gays/lesbians can’t produce children without that intervention because it is against laws of nature.

Like a straight married couple with fertility problems then.

God also prohibits eating shellfish, waterfowl, and pork. He apparantly does not like tattoos, pierced ears, or short hair. If your child is so disobedient that you can’t figure out what to do with him, taking him outside the city gates and stoning him to death is an appropriate action to take. Want to make love to your wife while she’s still menstruating? God doesn’t like that either, even if she’s just spotting a teeny bit. Oh, conquering a country in God’s name? Make sure you kill every last man, woman and child unless you just want to rape one of the women and keep her as your wife. I am tired of your cafeteria Christianity. Either man up and realize what Jesus had to say about homosexuality himself, or kindly shut your mouth.

 Seriously, we don’t care what any scripture says. It is all moot. If you want to keep to your personal cherry picking, that is fine with me. But don’t expect rational people to share your delusion.

Yes, his double standards are famous here.

To all of the religious people on here who use a Bible as their excuse for bigoted, intolerant, homophobic behavior?  To you I say that Gods reflect the people who worship them.  I’ll say it again.  Gods reflect the people who worship them.  Yes.  Gods.  Yours is one of many.  In every single religion, there are people who are loving and tolerant, and there are people who are closed minded and intolerant.  Within Christianity, there are loving tolerant people, and closed minded intolerant people…and you all read the same book.  You could just as easily choose to pray to the God that is tolerant, because it’s just as valid an interpretation…but you don’t.  The fact of the matter is that you choose the God and the interpretation that serves your personal views.  It’s as simple as that.  You get out of the Bible what you WANT to get out of the Bible.  I have never in my life head someone say, “Gee, I don’t have any problem with gay people personally and I really REALLY wish they could have the same rights I do…but that darn Bible makes it pretty clear that God says they can’t”.  You don’t hear that because people who believe that gay people should have equal rights gravitate toward a God that is just as open minded and tolerant of humanity in all it’s forms as they are…or towards no God at all.  I’m sick and tired of people hiding behind the God they choose and the interpretation of the Bible that they think justifies their discriminatory behavior.  Face up to your own bigotry.  It isn’t your God.  It’s YOU.  Take some responsibility for yourself already.  You go to a church that thinks gay people are somehow less because YOU think they’re somehow less.  If attempting to deny people equal rights feels ok to you, it’s because you’re not ok.  If you can’t manage to see people equally, you could choose to mind your own business.  If I’m not mistaken the Bible says it’s not your job to judge.  Not all bigots are Christians, and not all Christians are bigots.  The two operate individually of each other, but you’re both.  You picked a God who’s a bigot because you’re a bigot.  Own it or change it, but quit using religion as an excuse for your discriminatory behavior. 

Agree entirely mate – if you are a person who discriminates on the basis of sexuality then you are exactly the same as the person who discriminates on the basis of skin colour – a fully blown mullet headed cross burning hateful bigot. When you are on the same side of an argument as Fred Phelps and his hateful WBC cultists you really have to question that position and wonder why.

And me calling you out on that does not make me a bigot…..as the Three Stooges on Fox and Friends seem to believe.

I can also happily level a further charge at my US chums, and do so on a regular basis with a certain glee…..

See that Pledge Of Allegiance you guys like to recite a lot? See that end bit that says “With Liberty and Justice FOR ALL”? Sorry to shout that last bit but maybe that way you will hear the words you are saying…..

So my little anti-gay Kristyhun chum…..which are you then? An empty headed drone who just parrots a meaningless phrase, a liar who makes a pledge without intending to keep it, or just a damn hypocrite?

In the end, I just find myself asking, what is most important? Is it the word “marriage” or is it to ensure that all couples, regardless of orientation, have the same, equal rights? And if it’s the rights rather than a word (especially one which rightly or wrongly means different things to different people) maybe there are other ways to accomplish this, and to accomplish this sooner.

This ‘different label’ has already been tried in the U.S.  It’s called “civil unions”, and it hasn’t worked.   Civil marriages comes with hundreds of federal protections that don’t come with civil unions……

So, ‘separate but equal’ isn’t even equal.

Here in Canada, we just have marriage.  Hetero, same sex, simply marriage.
It’s astonishing that the U.S., the country that used to proudly boast about the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” things is lagging soooo badly behind countries like ours.  Really, America, get on with it already ~ the rest of us are looking at you and thinking “what the f is taking them so long?”

Oh yeah, we know why.

Marriage is a religious term?  Huh, well, I’m married and managed to get that way with a justice of the peace at a courthouse with absolutely NO mention of god.

I’m particularly offended at the idea that marriage requires a religious component since I was married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace and requested that there be NO mention of god during the ceremony.  I’d love for one of those religious wingnuts to come up and tell me to my face that I’m not MARRIED!

 Wait…didn’t jeebus tell you to abandon and renounce your family and follow him?

 I bet you were a disobedient child.  You should have been stoned to death at the city gate.

It should be equality for all, not just gays etc. What about the children who are the sole caretakers of aged parents? What about the son who is living with and taking care of his aged mother? What about the aged sisters that are living together to make ends meet? I could go on and on. That is why it should be called a union and not a marriage! The right should extend to all living together, and should not signal out gays and lesbians as deserving of special treatment.

I wouldn’t have gotten WHAT ‘rights’ exactly?

Oh, and NOW I’m VERY offended.  How dare you even try to tell me that I shouldn’t be able to say I’m married and able to claim all the rights and privileges of it (like being there for my husband if he’s in the hospital) because I didn’t include your imaginary critter in my ceremony.  Go away you nasty little BIGOT!

We will all get there in about 30 years as we did with the black/white issue of the 60’s.  We will all sit down and say “I can’t believe Christians thought that way,”  and all along there is a trail of pain we all had to go through so the future can say “oops….we made a mistake….sorry (with a smile)”

Seriously, we did it here in Canada.  Marriage.  That’s it.  No wasted money setting up two precisely the same things that are just called something different just to ‘not offend’ people who don’t have any right to any ‘special say’ in the matter in the first place.

It’s a little mind boggling that some people insist on trying to make this a whole lot more complicated than it has to be……..especially given that there’s no substantive reason NOT to just call all civil marriages marriages.

Who are you to say I cannot marry a farm animal? I am in love with my cow, she is in love with me as well. I buy her flowers on valentines day and everything. We need to change the definition of marriage so my lover and I can have the same rights as everyone else!

Ugh. Driving through mountains. Please delete.

Animals are exactly that, animals. They have no morals, they do not know right and wrong. You can’t possibly compare humans to animals or you must allow humans and animals to interbreed as well since “we are all animals” as you insinuate.
I’m sorry if you do not like the laws of morality, men and woman make children, men and men cannot! It’s wrong and us Christians have every right to state our opinion on it. If we want to donate money to what we believe is good for humanity who are you to tell us we can’t do so? You are as bigoted as anyone!

I am so confused. That isn’t what I meant at all. Clearly I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say and unfamiliar with your story, so I won’t say anything else. Except that I never intended to and never would question your marriage.

“except that you wouldn’t have gotten “rights” from getting married.”

So, explain what ‘rights’ I wouldn’t have gotten becuase I didn’t have a religious ceremony that included YOUR imaginary critter.

Try telling straight couples to get civil unions. See how far that will get you.
In France, the only reason why PACSs are so popular with straights is precisely because they aren’t a marriage. They’re far easier to dissolve.

Here are documents showing you exactly why Civil Unions don’t work:
http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/curc.html
(especially the “First Interim Report”)

For better or worse, the term “marriage” is so ingrained in American culture (ironically because it’s so hyper-religious at all levels) that it’s all people recognize. Religion is responsible for giving marriage such a high social status and now it has to deal with the fact that people won’t settle for less. And that despite being equal on paper, Civil Unions still don’t offer the same rights.

Man created god, not the other way around. Man created that bullshit u call the bible. God DOES not exist. Hate does.

To all my fellow Christians: STOP trying to defend marriage as “one man, one woman.” That is a Judeo-Christian construct that much of the world hasn’t and doesn’t follow in principle or in practice. If we had been founded by a polygamist or polyandrous culture, our laws would be different.

Here’s the deal: within your CHURCH/RELIGIOUS organization, you will always have the right to define the marriage sacrament however you’d like (to wit, the toleration, if not legalization, of polygamous marriages in some parts of the country by breakaway segments of the LDS). That is a First Amendment protection that stands and no one has the authority to force your congregation or denomination to marry a couple if they don’t fall within your definition of acceptable marriage material. You don’t have to accept a couple if one or both is previously divorced, has a child out of wedlock, or isn’t of your faith/denomination; you would never have to accept a gay or lesbian couple. Period. It isn’t even necessary to write such protections into any law legalizing same-gender marriage because it is a settled part of law and has been for, I don’t know, maybe 220 years?

What you DO NOT have the right to do is deny anyone else their right to equal treatment under the law as provided in the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a CIVIL right and it trumps the First Amendment to the extent that it provides for state and national recognition of a legal relationship that is equal to and called the same thing as all other relationships between two consenting adults. It is about the benefits and rights that accrue to a couple who have committed to each other and the protections a legal certificate of marriage provides at far less cost and more fully that any other legal document such as a power of attorney, a medical directive, or a legal trust.

So yes, when you make arguments from religion that are not about religion, you sound like those who defended slavery and second class status for women as religious truth. WRONG, heartless, and prejudiced. When in doubt about something the Bible says, remember that one religious and moral truth is universal (and in the Bible): “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This ought to settle the matter for you when everything else gets muddled.

–Rev. Ruth Shaver
United Church of Christ clergywoman

Jesus also said something about rendering unto Ceasar what is his. Marriage a civil contract that has nothing to do with religion legally.

Let’s just take the religion out of the concept of marriage.  There was NO religion involved in my ceremony and I’m just as married as those who included that crap.  In fact, I’ve been married longer than MANY who included imaginary critters in their ceremony.  There’s NOTHING magical about religious marriage.  It doesn’t confer anything special onto anyone.

Excuse me it was New york, not New jersey:

In Hickey v. State University of New York at Stony Brook Hospital, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105182
(ED NY, July 27, 2012), a New York federal district court denied
cross-motions for summary judgment in a Title VII religious
discrimination and retaliation lawsuit by a painter in the hospital’s
Physical Plant Department whose employment was terminated  for insisting
on wearing a lanyard around his neck printed with the phrase “I ♥
Jesus.” Attached to the lanyard was a plastic badge  holder with hand
written religious messages on it. The hospital claimed this conflicted
with its uniform policy.  It also alleged other job performance issues,
including alleged proselytizing.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: 
I do not fear Christians.  However, the presence of churches, as well as the weight given to the views of Christians, means that society is telling our children that it is okay to believe in God when we are telling them (and more importantly our morality system is telling them) that it is not.   
Would I then be justified in fighting for removing Christianity from the public eye, for forcing my views on the entirety of society?  If not, how does this differ from your fighting for removing the LGBT community from the public eye?
Also, how do you reconcile your view of God with the view of God other Christians have, one that doesn’t see the LGBT community as sinful?  They’ve got the same Bible as you, after all, and can support their view with verses.  Please try to avoid (in your explanation of why they’re wrong) any unfounded statements that they could also use to to explain why you’re wrong.

It’s already separated. The only thing that counts is the marriage license and certificate. Everything else is optional. Marriage is already pretty much exactly as you describe. People can have any kind of ceremony they wish. It doesn’t have to be religious, but for it to be legal they need a document from the civil authorities.

You are going at this the wrong way. It’s not the government that needs to get out of marriage. It’s religion that needs to get out the legal aspects of it.
And for that you simply need to look at continental Europe. In many countries influenced by the French Code Civil (which also includes South America), you must get married at city hall by a civil registrar. People who don’t want a religious ceremony can do that more elaborately or also have a civil registrar come to some location. More religious people can have a short civil ceremony (just a few minutes) and then go to church. But a priest can’t perform a marriage without it having been registered at city hall first.

The US has muddled that concept by having priests act as notaries (the British system is a mix between the two). They are able to notarize a civil legal document. That has led to many peoples’ (including you) misconception that they are an essential part of the system. They aren’t.

 The New Mexico case involving a civil union instead of a same sex marriage is a distinction without a difference. The result is the same- a person who disagreed with the morality of same sex unions based upon her religion was fined for this belief. so it is a great example of religious liberty being affected by this shift. 

As for new Jersey, again your distinction makes no difference. The church did not approve of the same sex union which is different from not approving of their sexual orientation. It is the behavior they were objecting to and the fact that their facility was being asked to be used for something they did not agree with. That was a threat to their religious liberties.

You may think it will never happen but the use of same sex marriages and anti discrimination laws are already being used to try and deprive churches of their religious liberties. The reason they will continue to be is that the gay community wants moral acceptance of their lifestyle and they will continue to push until the churches are silenced. 

One of the arguments made by religious people about same sex marriages is that it would open the door to all sorts of other unions, including polygamy.  At the time and continuing until today the gay community says that will never happen and is silly.  Yet we are already seeing it.  Suit was just filed in Utah trying to overturn the polygamy laws and is using the redefinition of marriage as the basis. 

So your assurances are hollow and a lie.

 Churches are open to the public.  They invite visitors. however, you proved my point.  You stated that if the church only allows its members to marry than it would be private and can not allow same sex marriages to take place in their facility, but if they allow non members to use their facility, they would be required to.  That is exactly my point. they would no longer either be allowed to open their facilities at the risk of losing their religious liberties. 

 Take the baker in Colorado as an example. That baker served the gay community all the time and did not say no until it came to making a wedding cake because of religious grounds.  Yet this is deemed discrimination when in reality it is disagreeing with behavior.  Or the bed and breakfast owner who refused to allow any unmarried couple to rent a room on religious grounds, yet the only people who cried discrimination were the gay couple that was refused a room. Churches do the same thing. I know for a fact that my church accepts gay people all the time as visitors and members, but they would not perform a civil union ceremony and they disapprove of people living together and counsel against it. If someone wanted the church to bless their union outside of marriage they would refuse.  We have that right under the constitution. It is called freedom of religious expression. On this basis religious expression is special and does hold a special place in our society.

 Prop 8 does not forbid a church to preform a same sex marriage.  That is a lie.  It just says that the state won’t recognize it.  No religious liberty is threatened by that.  Yet the reverse is exactly the case- when the state approves same sex marriage, people use that acceptance to force others to change their views or participate in them against their religious beliefs. George Orwell understands clearly what you are ignoring.

Some states do recognize that elderly people who live together benefit from having some legal ties to each other. It’s why domestic partnerships are sometimes available to straight couples above age 68 or so – even if their relationship isn’t romantic.

That said, biological children already have all necessary legal rights. They’re next of kin.

You don’t have the religious liberty to discriminate against someone else because of their race, sexual orientation, religious views, etc. Your rights stop where they infringe on other people’s rights. I would think that this is a pretty obvious truth.

I’m just gonna quote Margaret Whitestone below, because  she said it better than I could:

You can’t tell the difference between loving relationships between consenting adults and predation on children, animals or inanimate objects which clearly cannot give consent.   Your morals are clearly twisted and you probably shouldn’t be allowed in the general population.

In other news, there is a rational basis for enforcing halal dietary rules – Quran 2:173, 5:3, 5:5, 5:90, 6:118.  Or is using a religious text to force views on the entirety of society a Christian-only privilege?

Lets talk about the definition of a Christian while we’re arguing about definitions.  Are you a Christian because you follow all the rules and laws in the Bible? (an impossible task, btw.)  Are you a Christian because you’ve accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?  (Good, if you have, but now what?) Or are you a Christian because you try to live the primary teaching of Christ in community, which was to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself?  All three are valid expressions of Christianity.  But IMHO, the third one is the one that comes closest.  One cannot be a faithful Christian if one holds hate in their heart for anyone.  

Both of you totally miss my point. My point: call all marriages civil unions. All the people clining to the stance “marriage is between man and woman” will have no leg to stand because eveyonewould no longer be getting “married”, they’re obtaining a civil union. Stev84, you spent more effort attempting to make me look less inteligent than actually addressing my point. Thanks for the unecessary history lesson, it does nothing to address my point that the US legal system (actually the state and local govts) issue a “marriage” license or cert. The use of the marriage term opens the door for the b.s. “we cannot just change the defenition marriage” argument.

As well wht would be the point for man to make god anyways

I can’t resist the triple correction.  The New Testament — all of it — was probably written in Greek, and in the case of Revelation I don’t think there’s anyone arguing otherwise.  Greek was the language one disseminated texts in.  There are some religious groups who believe there are Aramaic originals for some of the books, but among historians the consensus is that the Greek texts are probably the originals.  I’m not familiar with a statement banning translation in any clear terms, but perhaps David is thinking of the conclusion of Revelation which does say that no one shall ever add to it in any way lest they be severely punished.

I agree with many of your points. The logic of my approach is this: if we say “fine, we’re not changing the defenition of marriage, we’re calling all unions between two people civil unions. You can have your precious word.” Then anyone who ardently opposes after thatthe point will truly look like a bigot. The “we can’t change marriage” argument is a weak stance that they all crowd behind as an alternative to syaing “gay marriage disgusts me,” which is less norally defensible and they know it.

It’s so frustrating! But I think all the screaming about children evokes some deep sense of fear in them. Perhaps they really do imagine that straight people are going to be so tempted by the possibility of a same-sex marriage that gay people will take over the world.

That seems crazy, but their stubbornness makes no sense. Even if they believe wholeheartedly that “children need a mother and a father,” denying legal marriage to same-sex couples is not going to a) prevent their children from existing or b) give them parents of the opposite sex.

I really think punishment and control come in at this point for the organized anti-gay movement. I’m pretty sure their ultimate goal is to make life so unpleasant for same-sex couples that they’ll want to stop being in those relationships. It’s as if they think they can prevent people from “choosing” to be gay by making them suffer.

This is fucking BRILLIANT.

I am against gay marriage. Well… I am against heterosexual marriage, too. Is there a single, credible, non-religious reason to deny equal rights to unmarried people? Giving people the “right” to marry and enjoy “privileges” of married people is sheer discrimination. Fighting for equal rights for something that gives you discriminative privileges sounds a bit paradoxical to me.

How about the one that says that women should stfu or that other one about killing disobeying childre or another one about killing people on sabbath? Do you follow those “laws”?

To explain things before we figured out a better way of doing that.

There have been millions of gods throughout history. Do you think they were all real? Maybe you think they were all made up, except for the one you happen to believe in?

Who defined it as that? If you look in the Bible there were many examples of multiple wives, concubines, etc. It’s a marriage.  I have been married since 1974.  Allowing gays to marry will not degrade my marriage.  If that is the issue let’s find a different word for anyone who has been married more than once (unless they were widowed) I agree Chick Fil A has the right to support what they want.  But I have the right to let people know why I won’t eat there since I don’t want my money supporting their philosophy.  That’s why there is a boycott.

Fan-freakin-tastic!

So, first you say it’s unnatural and we point to you that it is not and then you go around by saying that because of our brain we are can overwrite every natural settings we have?

I agree so much with this, but they don’t mean well. You don’t call people fags, dykes, or any other name, throw pop on them, tell them their going to hell, and so on because you mean well. I was raised in a christian home and I am a lesbian. I believe in God but I cannot support christian ways. They are wrong in this case, and I don’t know whether to pray for God to have mercy on the judgmental souls or pray that he doesn’t. 

I have to say, I am a married Christian mother of four who did indeed give birth to a child out of wedlock and also divorced my husband. I was sexually active before I was married and even was involved with a married man (in my young stupid days). My god still lives me. I am a niece of a catholic bishop and three nuns. I am a sister to an openly gay man who is in fact engaged to his partner of 9 years, and I am a daughter to two of the most country catholic people u will see meet. I also have a small child which I suspect is gay. 😉 I know without a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a choice, I know that Mr. Cathy did exercise his right to freedom of speech (as I am now), and I know that in this blog, u r too. And I appreciate all of it! I have objectively listened to both sides of the argument in a mature manner and have in fact opened some people’s eyes and some people have opened mine. Ur right, this is not a matter of free speech….. Bc everyone has that right already. It is an issue of equality and a law that should be unbiased to religious preference. BUT…. With all of that being said, be better. … Mr. Cathy exercised his right to freedom of speech, but in doing so, he insulted people with his blatant disregard and disrespect for other peoples feelings. Don’t reduce yourself to that. The LBGT community has handled themselves with poise for many many years about their views and I would hate to see all of that grace destroyed because of one mans national platform on small mindedness. Let’s not make this an eye for an eye. Let’s take a breather and collect ourselves and remain the moral high ground. He may in fact be the definitions of everything u say, but don’t say it. Maintain yourself. Be better. Much love <3. I support equality and love. How could I be a good mother if I didn't??? Think about that parents? All u parents with small children… Do u know who ur kids are yet?

“Perhaps God will have mercy on you and open your eyes.”

Which god? The god of the Christians that are for gays marrying or the god of the Christians that are against equal rights. 

It is funny how you and your god are both against equal rights. 

 Can you explain to any of us why your religious belief should be the law?

Great post. I’m so tired of conservatives actively pushing to strip away the rights of our citizens and force their religious beliefs on all of us through the law, then turning around and crying persecution the second someone tries to call them on what they’re doing. The fact that it actually works with so many people is frightening. The fact that people don’t see the parallels between this and civil rights, or women’s suffrage, is disheartening. And it’s the reason why conservative politicians love to cut the education budget, hike up our taxes, and pacify us with sensational news stories about fried chicken. The less we know, the less we have,  and the less we understand, the greater their license to oppress and discriminate. 

You could also use that analogy with interracial marriage. Fear of change in society with black men marrying white men and having children (omg), when you’re desperately trying to teach your children that you don’t agree with it. That was certainly how “anti-race mixing” advocates felt 45+ years ago. Thank God we’re over that dumb fear and I have a beautiful mixed son and daughter on the way by a white man. I pray that we will eventually come to accept gay marriages like we accept interracial ones.

Why the hell are we debating how the Bible defines marriage? When did the Bible become the standard for civil matters in a secular society?

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.

I’m sorry. I missed it before, but did you write “No I don’t think Christians need to worry too much about persecution yet either.” Like they will in the future? Are cereal?

I think u may have misunderstood my perspective. I am, by no means at all, saying to stand quietly by and endure things. I am simply stating that name calling by both parties has seemed to drown out te very valid points that pro equality individuals are trying to get across. Sadly, when supporters of the LGBT community do resort to that, the opposing side completely shuts down and tunes out. I have taught my children to stand up for injustices and bullies, even if they have to do it alone…. In my experience ( and trust me I have had plenty) it normally just takes away from the real subject at hand

Better question is: Why should any religious belief be the Law?

 When your cow can give informed consent and sign a marriage certificate you can petition for the right to marry her.  Until then just boink her in the field like you’ve been doing up until now.

You don’t have to call ME a bigot or a homophobe, I have been married and divorced (like most marriages) so I speak from experience when I say that institution is vooked.  We treat single people differently than married ones (I would speculate for religious historic reasons).  It is not unlike sodomy laws in that it affected pretty much the entire homosexual population (except those asshats that married straight people).

Knowing what marriage is, I can’t say it is a choice for me.  Nor can I force another to marry me, so being single is truly not a matter of individual choice.

Yet, we pay lots more for taxes, cannot easily assign rights of survivorship, get insurance discounts, etc. etc.  Even those of us who are single parents.

And really, love and marriage are not mutually inclusive.  I do not buy the “who cares if they are in love”, it is the benefits and rights and etc that are denied single people that is the issue.  There are no laws preventing you from loving another person, and that love is not Dependant on marriage.

Singleism is an issue that affects gay people and straight people alike, it affects like 4.5 times more people than gay marriage.

Wouldn’t you like to have the same rights and privleges as married people, regardless if you love another romantically or not?   Or even if you want to love 10 others?

And on the  otherhand why should single people subsidize romantic relationships?

So, my “opposition” such as it were, isn’t that gay people should not love one another, nor is it religious or particularly emotional, but that I simply don’t think it is right to have different rights for single and married people period.  That is textbook discrimination.  Equalize rights and benefits between married people and you can proclaim your love for whoever (or bail on a crappy relationship) with no legal impact.

Even if you think marriage is or should be about love, do you think it is a matter for the government/industry to stick their fingers in?

True. You’d think they’d notice that their complaints about being silenced are getting published and responded to.

the problem with the post is that it ties marriage rights to marriage.  You cannot be calling someone a bigot when they are not so much trying to prevent you having the same rights as they are protecting something they hold dear. Its a bit of a dirty tactic to do what this author is doing.  You are trying to circumvent what very many consider a religious institution and insisting that protecting that institution equates to withholding rights. 

I still maintain that gays should leave marriage alone and actually focus on fighting for equal rights. Otherwise you are just being disingenuous. It would be like men fighting for the right to enter the female restrooms and calling anyone who opposes a bigot, when they can have free use of the male restroom (equal rights). I don’t know if the pro-gay marriage crowd is too stupid to realize this or they are really being that dishonest. Maybe the real aim is to demolish certain moral views rather than allowing them to coexist.

But are you and your socially conscious fellow Christians making any useful noises against the anti-gay or the anti-women Christians? Have you tried to block any of their hateful attempts at legislating against gay’s or women’s rights?

It’s not enough to accept gay ministers and yet let the haters take the microphone and imply they speak for all Christians.

You’d be less likely to be painted with a broad brush for supporting hate if you were heard criticising it directly and effectively, yourselves.

1. If you are not for equality for the unborn child…

If you are against rights for the unborn…

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” – St. Thomas Aquinas

Whoops. Replied on the wrong one. 

 Feel free to leave and shake the dust off your sandals, then.

I would rather live my life believing that God exists and find out in death that he doesn’t, rather than live my life believing that He doesn’t exist only to find out in death that He does.

Protect means to prevent from harm.  How would gay marriage harm the institution? 

Actually, what I can’t wait for (whether I’ll live long enough to enjoy the spectacle is another matter, though), will be the rise of strong artificial intelligence. I can easily see someone wanting to marry their android or gynoid.

I can see such machines declaring that they are sentient, thinking, rational and alive.
I can see the hatred and backlash by humanity against this kind of thing.
I can see humans losing the battle very quickly – probably via extermination.

Ever wonder why in fictional sci-fi universes the machines rise up and stomp the humans? Could it simply be because we denied them their rights as sentient, thinking, rational and alive beings?

The crazy thing? That is what many of these sci-fi fictionalizations explore – yet despite watching them, despite these same rights battles going on constantly (with a few changes in names, places, and definitions), some grand part of us refuses to learn. Not all of us – but enough of us to make the rest of us shake our heads at the stupidity and ignorance around us.

I keep hoping we figure it out before we make our “dumb matter” intelligent – because it very well may not be as forgiving to us, as we have been to each other (simply because their memories won’t degrade like our species’ memories do over time)…

Marriage is not a man made institution.
In the beginning the Creator created a man and a woman and the Creator married them.If it was right the Creator would have created a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but I think we can all see if that was the case we wouldn’t be here now would we?
Can you understand what is RIGHT and what is WRONG now?
It cannot be both ways.Right is right and wrong is wrong.

As far as your race comment, well all I can say is there is only one race and that’s the human race and I would go so far as to say, anything else is just racist…

I have heard this argument before and it is flat wrong. The Supreme Court has specifically held that religious freedom includes the right to practice that religion. However, when it comes to practices the state has an interest in how that is done and can regulate it. In order to do so the state must show a compelling reason and must tailor this regulation narrowly in order not to unduly infringe on the religious liberties of the religion. But to say that the first amendment only protects
religious beliefs is an atheist myth.

LOL natural laws. A law must be written before it can be a law.You simply cannot get something from nothing.

What the heck does that have to do with anything? 

Which is pretty damned convenient, don’t you think?

“In my mind “civil unions” or whatever we want to call them would be widespread, the same for all couples, and available to all couples. It would be a federal legal document and agreement.” 

We already have a word for this legal construct. That word is “marriage.” And if the government said “we’re not going to have marriage anymore and everyone will have a civil union,” we’d have an even worse outcry from the religious people screaming about having their marriages taken away by the big bad government.

Aside from that, on a purely practical level, do you know how much it would cost to reword every document (laws, forms, etc.) out there to replace the term “marriage” and its variants? I don’t know either, but I do know that we have a lot better things on which we could (and should) be spending our tax money. Besides, people will still call it marriage anyway. People need to learn that some words mean more than one thing, and get on with their lives.

“because eveyonewould no longer be getting “married”, they’re obtaining a civil union”

And you think the religious right wouldn’t have an absolute fit over that? They’re so keen on not ‘sharing’ a word, wait until the evil liberal government tries to take it away altogether!

“However, when it comes to practices the state has an interest in how that is done and can regulate it” But it must do so with SECULAR reasoning. 
If you think the definition of marriage comes from your religion only for religious reasons, and you want the government to only recognize your religions definition of it, then you are directly violating the first amendment rights of those that do not follow your religion! You just do not fundamentally extend the same “freedom of religion” to others that you demand.

Religious expression is protected by the first amendment to the constitution so they ate given exemptions to some laws in order to protect this freedom.

You know what, it doesn’t matter if you think you cant explain your religion to me. You still have no right to force me or anyone else to practice it. I will never bow down to your god and I will fight you and people like who would force others to do so. those of you who feel they can use the rule of law to force others to practice your religion are nothing but thugs in the name of christ. 

The law doesn’t provide you the right to practice your religion all over other people.   Your religious liberties stop where the rights of others begin.  Or would you think it’s OK for Muslims to insist you kowtow to their beliefs because otherwise you’re infringing on their “religious freedom”?

Your abject ignorance of this subject does not change the actual facts in the slightest.

We don’t live in biblical times when procreation was extremely important.  People needed a ton of kids back then, and a third of them died as infants with another two or three dying in childhood.  The reason why procreation is important in the bible is because it WAS important.  Today we live in a world that is overpoulated, and every baby that is born adds to the poverty level.  People live longer.  Birth is safer and has much higher percentages of babies living.  We don’t have open plagues where large populations of people die.  In biblical times it’s true that having as many kids as you could was necessary, but we don’t live in biblical times.  We have unwanted kids in foster care, orphanages, and living on the streets.  Procreation in the numbers seen thousands of years is no longer needed or wanted if we want the earth to last.  Our resources are dwindling.  For you to say that gay people would create a genocide is ridiculous.  Do you know what genocide even is?  We have straight people who get married and don’t have kids.  Do you tisk tisk them?  Your logic is flawed on multiple levels…and by the way…gay people aren’t sterile.  They have kids all the time.   

If we all became gay the human race would end in a very short time.

Good grief, not this lame argument again.  Look around you, gay people are capable of reproducing. 

Secondly, if everyone were female the human race would ‘end in a short time’. Does that make being female unnatural or immoral?

Please give some thought to the ‘arguments’ you toss out before you do so.

The Christians in this comment section are making me really happy I freed myself of that bullshit.

“You cannot be calling someone a bigot when they are not so much trying to prevent you having the same rights as they are protecting something they hold dear.”

  I hold a lot of things “dear” also.  Just because you “hold something dear” doesn’t mean that you own the rights to it.  By all means, hold your marriage dear.  No one is stopping you from doing that.  When you group an entire portion of the population together and tell them that they, and only they, don’t get to marry because Christians hold their marriage “dear”…you’re a bigot.

I would rather live my life believing that Zeus exists and find out in
death that he doesn’t, rather than live my life believing that He
doesn’t exist only to find out in death that He does.

..and this one time in band camp..

Also, expect trolls here and PLEASE do not feed them. Life is short. Trolls are innumerable.

then what should I do with my WWJH* bumper sticker?
(*Who Would Jesus Hate)

Total non sequitur. We are talking about civil marriage. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

All that crap about “God’s definition of marriage” craftily bypasses the millions of straight people married in a courthouse, all the people who are married who aren’t Christians, or perhaps don’t believe in any God at all, and the fact that one of the reasons we declared our independence from England was “taxation without representation.” Gay people  pay more taxes than straight people because their marriages are not recognized by the government, plus they can’t even draw spousal Social Security or pension benefits, or get family insurance rates. Why should a gay person be denied equal government benefits because YOU (and I mean the bigot) chose to practice a particular religion? Practice all you want, but don’t impose your impression of a hateful god on me.

(And I am a gay Baptist in Texas, a member of a Welcoming and Affirming Baptist Church, that does not take to any of those cherry-picked and questionably interpreted excuses for bigotry that some people claim to excuse them from Jesus’ commandment to love their neighbor as themselves.)

If you do believe in God( which I don’t) and you believe he is omnipresent and omnipotent then where did all the gay’s and lesbians come from? Is he not the “creator”? Or is he some sort of prick who creates things he doesn’t like and condemns them just to torture people and make the world miserable? If that’s the case then that’s some God you got there! I’ll stick to my Godless atheism thank you very much!

Randy, that’s ridiculous. Even if the entire world magically “became gay,” it wouldn’t mean that children wouldn’t be born. My parents are lesbians, and guess what, my brother and I still exist.

All being gay means is that same-sex couples can’t have children by accident. No unplanned pregnancies. No unwanted children. When you think about it, wouldn’t that actually be a good thing for the human race?

Rachel sounds naive.  If someone in the 60s said, I support segregation, but I love Black people, would that make any sense?  Or someone in South Africa pre-1990s saying, I support apartheid, but I’m not a racist?

If you don’t support equal rights for gay people, you’re a homophobe.  You can be a nice homophobe, and even a homophobe who has gay friends, but you’re still a homophobe.

If You Oppose Marriage Equality, What Else Am I Supposed to Call You?

Up until a couple of months ago, you could’ve called me Obama.

Amazing, amazing article. I’m quoting you in my post at slapdashmom.com today. 🙂

lol @ the title of this article. Why do you have to “call” people anything? Why can you not simply state your opinion without trying to silence everyone who disagrees with you through namecalling? Why don’t you state your opinion and let it be praised or panned on its own merit?

I don’t like some of the statements made by people at Family Research Council, etc, but in fairness, you don’t know that Dan Cathy agrees with EVERYTHING they say either. I’ve never been to a chick fil a, but all the hatred and slander shown to Dan Cathy makes me want to go to one.

I am religious, but the marriage issue has nothing to do with religion for me. I don’t want to see marriage redefined in our culture, whether it’s to accommodate same sex couples or plural groups. If there were a “right” to redefine marriage, I’d have to honor that. However, there is no such thing. As far as marriage being “redefined” throughout history, there’s not one instance of which I’m aware of any culture recognizing homosexual marriage. That doesn’t mean in and of itself that there is no “right” to gay marriage, but it does say that this supposed right had never been recognized anywhere, until a judge in Massachusetts decided it existed a few years ago. Could that be because this “right” does not in fact exist? Some might make a comparison to women’s suffrage here. Women’s suffrage, however, didn’t require a fundamental redefinition of a cultural cornerstone like marriage.

The race issue is different too as it likewise did not require a change in the definition of marriage. And there were many Catholic and other Christian clergy, religious, and laypeople who were involved in the civil rights movement, so to say that Christians try to deny people their civil rights is a nonstarter.

And btw, have you gone to your local mosque to call them out on their “bullsh1t”? I’m betting they also oppose same sex marriage. Are you boycotting oil products due to the horrible treatment of gay men in some of the opec nations?

Randy, I took a look at your Facebook profile. You do know that your own marriage would have been illegal in many states as recently as 1967. Rather ironic, don’t you think? 

People who were against interracial marriage offered up religious reasons for that, too.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 Does planned parenthood discriminate?

Can you understand that not everyone is a member of your religion or agrees with your interpretation of it? Can you understand that you do not have a right to rule these people according to the dictates of YOUR religion?

Surely this statement alone proves that you are a troll just trying to irritate people. No one is actually this stupid.

So you’re a rube.

Your denial of the truth…doesn’t make it less truth!

your denial of your creator doesn’t make you less a unique creation…your hate games and finger pointing doesn’t make anything better…but the puffed up feeling you get inside…as you deny the fact that all people…ALL Humans are children of our God…and if you only want to play with some kind or another…and not with others…only makes you limited in your understanding of your creator…all who are alive…must account for you own relationship with your creator…i pray continuously for you…and all others who think that who or what they have sex with could make them better than another…all are accountable…all must account for what they do while here…he is the God of love…and he loves all of us…even those who hurt others…even those who deny who he is…all must know him…or he will truly tell you in the end…”I never knew you.”
So stop playing name games…and pionting fingers and blaming Eve for the first sin…and be accountable to God…He aleady knows what is in your heart…wake up…or better…grow up…so you can Go up!

You are all looking rediculous…will you ever graduate from Kindergarden?

I’m a Christian with a conservative interpretation of the Bible on homosexuality, but I don’t care if gays get married.  Me thinking that homosexuality by practice (NOT orientation) is a sin does not make me think  that gays are less worthy human beings than straights.  I mean, I know atheist couples who live together outside of marriage, but I love them just as much as my Christian married couple friends who “stayed pure” until marriage.  Recognizing that someone is sinning doesn’t mean you get to mistreat and discriminate them, or think you’re better than them.  I’m a sinner too and other sinners do not have to justify their life choices to me. 

America separates the church and the state, so pro-family groups cannot expect gay and lesbian couples who want LEGAL, not RELIGIOUS recognition of their union to follow the biblical teaching.  It just doesn’t make sense and it’s not realistic.  I mean, if America has a Hindu rather than Judeo-Christian heritage, is it fair, for instance, for non-Hindus in this hypothetical, alternate universe to be denied beef when they go to a restaurant?  Food and marriage are two different issues, but you see my point.

My other objection to the pro-family group tactic is why so worked up to de-legalize one sin and not others.  I mean, Christianity says pre-marital sex is sin, so where’s the outcry circus to ban common-law marriage? Not saying that I want to ban common-law marriage, I really don’t care, but I’m just saying they’re very inconsistent.  

Tony Campolo expressed it best when he said that Christians couldn’t expect the lgbt community to believe that we love them when we deny them equal rights.  Being a Christian myself, I totally understand why some well-meaning Christians are so shocked by the bigot label, but they must also take the time to understand why lgbt people feel so insulted.

Steenie, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say. I don’t believe in any gods, but I think it’s clear that people interpret what’s in the Bible to fit their own prejudices. Slave owners used it to to justify slavery. Opponents of interracial marriage used it to justify miscegenation laws. And now opponents of same-sex marriage use it the same way. The content of the book hasn’t changed, but people have.

So then you admit that you’re trying to insert a purely religious definition of marriage into law.  That’s a violation of church-state separation.
As for your creation myth, women were an after-thought. They were never part of the original plan.  After all, Eve was merely plucked out of Adam because he was lonely and begging for a companion.

Is your donor a part of your life?
Now if I have a child out of wedlock that child would be deemed illegitimate.Goggle it for an understanding of the word.Don’t get mad at me I didn’t make the law.In fact what a lot of people don’t realize about the law is it’s made in a foreign country call Washington District of Columbia.You might want to goggle that up too.

No, I have never met my donor. Why on earth does that matter?

You didn’t answer my question. Are children conceived by donor insemination less deserving of protection? Apparently you seem to think we should be deemed illegitimate (very 1950s, by the way!) and denied protection because our parents didn’t conceive us the “right” way. Please explain why it matters how a child is conceived.

Well if it doesn’t matter to you that you never met your father why should it bother me.If you believe that’s completely normal that is your prerogative.Just remember though what is normal to you may not be normal to others and vise verse.
As far as you stating protection could you define what you mean by that?I do believe every child should be safe and have the necessities of life but whats that have to do with same sex marriage?
Oh it’s not 1950’s.Example I live in the Philippines(I’m American) and I have a child out of wedlock,not only is that child illegitimate but also cannot be an American.
Personally I don’t care what other people do when it doesn’t pertain to me.

As a Christian who supports Marriage Equality I have to say WELL SAID! 

I’m linking to this post, and quoting Neal’s comment  below (because it was just so well said, I couldn’t have said it better) in my post at http://sgryle.blogspot.com (From Ashes to Beauty.)