marriage equality in California

[martha]

So when the people and their elected officials outlawed Chinese marriage in California, that was cool with you?

Any answers to this?

 

[martha]

I was playing that stupid Tetris game and getting my ass kicked thinking about this.

Indy, I think if you said that you were uncomfortable with gay marriage and it creeped you out and you needed some time to get used to it, I could deal with that. But you keep bringing up polygamy, "newly-discovered rights," and all sorts of other things that just sound exclusionary, bigoted, and like excuses to make your fear into law.

And before you start hollering and bringing up your Constitutional rights (without any irony, I might add), no where have I said you aren't perfectly entitled to do all of those things. I'm saying that when you start a fire, don't be surprised when people piss on it to put it out.

 

[nathan1977]

Gay man sues publishers over Bible verses - USATODAY.com

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.

Fowler filed the suit in federal court against Zondervan on July 7, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson.

Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes.

The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan.

 

[BVS]

The lawsuit is ridiculous and really has nothing to do with this thread...

The Bible in all legal sense shouldn't have anything to do with the federal courts, so actually he may be making a brilliant move to prove a point and shut some people up.

 

[maycocksean]

Gay man sues publishers over Bible verses - USATODAY.com

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.

Fowler filed the suit in federal court against Zondervan on July 7, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson.

Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes.

The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan.

I'm fairly certain this fellow doesn't have a case.

Just because some one sues doesn't mean that we all need to worry. . .Frivolous lawsuits happen everyday and life goes on.

 

[maycocksean]

Why is homosexual marriage not the same as interracial marriage. . .yes, yes, I know the obvious difference re: gender, but isn't the real opposition due to the belief that "there's nothing morally wrong with people of different races marrying" but "there IS something morally wrong with people of the same gender marrying?"

Isn't that really what underlies the argument that there is a difference between the two? I think the establishing of new rights argument is just weak (unless of course you believe that the new right established promotes something that is morally wrong. . .well, then it gains considerable strength).

And I'm wondering, Indy if you can't understand that many opponents of interracial marriage did (and still do) believe that such marriages are morally wrong and an affront to God? These people are not raving, foaming-at-the-mouth racists. They wouldn't support a lynching or legal segragation. They have black (or white as the case may be) friends. They just think it's "not right" for blacks and whites to marry, and they are sincere in their belief.

That doesn't change the fact that their belief still represents a racist worldview.

I feel like you want to paint people who hold racist worldviews in this brush of virulent hatred and it's not that way. In the same way those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either. It's not that simple, and yet the views are still hurtful and problematic even those who hold them "dont' mean" for them to be.

Now couldn't it be possible--just possible--that the same might be true of those who oppose gay marriage?

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

[...] There also what I consider to be valid arguments against no-fault divorce, the proliferation of single parent families as well as same-sex marriage. [...] So I don't know, maybe instead of allowing more marriages we should actually be outlawing the entire institution.

I dislike no-fault divorce myself, as I'm not sure that a 50%+1 fault (as in civil liability cases) is too much of a burden to prove sometimes, especially in clear-cut cases of neglect/abuse. That being said, though, throwing out all marriage on account of disagreements and whatnot seems somewhat silly, as some people will choose not to get married and that's fine, and others will have marriages that don't work which is unfortunate but also not atypical of relationships in the larger sense, the only real problem is with people who want to get married but can't. People are going to be together, that much is pretty certain, but to extend benefits to some and not all ... either scrap it all, or be inclusive, I don't think there are many other options if we're talking about legal entitlement. Religious institutions can keep their privileges and traditions as far as I'm concerned, I just want to talk about the contract itself.

[...] We have laws against racial discrimination so if they are equal then why not take away the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Catholic charities in Massachusetts got out of child adoption services because that state held their beliefs against gay adoption to be discriminatory, so they just got out of the business rather than face lawsuits. Someone, somewhere, would challenge the First Amendment rights of a church to refuse to marry people of the same-sex.

This is true, and it's a good question, why don't they take away the tax-exempt status? It's probably because the documentation re marriage which holds all the legal meaning is ultimately issued as a state document, and I'm not sure the church has much real place in the authenticity of the whole thing -- the ceremony itself isn't really a legally binding contract. If a church wants to say the union isn't okay in the eyes of God, that's their prerogative, if they feel they can speak for whatever divinity may exist that's fine, but that doesn't really have legal ramifications on how much tax you pay and whether or not you're entitled to receive the benefits of your partner's life insurance when they die. The churches will continue to get away with it because the essence of the thing is not the location or the words spoken but the documentation. They can say what they do/don't want to in the church, on their own land, according to their own beliefs and principles if they so choose, because the delivery of the service is non-essential to the legal definition of marriage. If gays and lesbians want to be joined under the catholic roof, they should talk to the vatican, not the government. If they just want to be legally married (and they do) that's a state issue, and that's what I think we're trying to resolve here.

One has to show that they are in fact not being treated equally.

And I imagine it can be done, but sadly I'm not up on the nuances of what goes on in each of the states to really be able to speak on the American condition of the thing. I'll defer to others on that one.

Define equal. Certainly Jefferson's phrase "all men are created equal" is only "virtually" true. In the eyes of the law and God, but in reality, of coarse not. All of us are born with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages.

Well, this is it. In the eyes of the law and God, and logically as well, people are all created equal, being of equal merit in spite of their physical attributes, mental acumen, personality, beliefs, or favourite cold beverage. In reality you're right, no two people are analogues else they wouldn't be individuals, but the whole system that governs society breaks down if you treat people as individuals since you'd have to govern each person based on those individual traits. That's not the issue, though: 'Virtually all of the rights' and 'equal rights' are clearly not the same, since the use of the term virtually in place of 'equal' implies that there is difference. If there's difference between them, that's an inequity, and that's a problem. If marriage is treated the same for black people, white people, hispanics, immigrants, US-natives, English speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers, Jews, Jehova's witnesses, Mormons, Kentuckians and Alaskans but not for gays and lesbians, then the statement 'in the eyes of the law' is false. Inequity is not equity. Since we're talking about the law, and not whether people are deficient individuals or exceptional individuals, I think it's totally apt to make this distinction as I have.

The U.S. Constitution anyway, is meant to be a rigid document listing what the federal government can and cannot do, leaving the rest up to the populace.

Ah, Canada's constitution is slightly different in intention that way. It does outline what the government can/can't do in a way but it's less explicit as it underwent major reforms in 1983 with the inclusion of the charter of rights and freedoms, and has been a much more organic animal than the US Constitution and -- though nonetheless rigid -- is less explicit about what can/can't be done but is a summary of key principles and values. If I don't understand your constitution and make or have made a wrong inference relating to it, my apologies.

That's one of my points actually. There is no, not any, precedent for same-sex marriage. Not in the law, not in tradition, not in any religious or secular moral system, not even in a previous state wide vote in California. None. That in itself doesn't mean that same-sex marriage shouldn't be recognized in the year 2008, but it does mean that perhaps it's way too big of a change to be decided by 7 or 9 people alone.

There was a time in human history when there was no precedent for marriage, either, and that eventually came into our traditions and religious doctrines, and later into positivist systems. Homosexuality has been around for ages, as long or longer than Western society itself. It doesn't seem outlandish to me that new traditions can be made, or old ones altered, and it seems like a good opportunity to put to rest a long-standing marginalization of people who are no different than you or I. While I agree that perhaps 7-10 people shouldn't have the authority to make the choice, and I don't envy your mode of government for it's lacking of public referendum votes, change has to start somewhere and even starting the dialogue -- even if the decision is overturned at some point -- still offers the potential for progress on the issue.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

AM I the only one who didn't see anything abusive in what Martha said? Why did it make clear sense to me what she said? Oh, maybe it's because I am one of those gay people who wants to have the same rights (not special rights) that everyone else has as far as marriage laws.

You're new here-all will be revealed, in time.

I'm all for gay marriage btw, just fyi Perfectly fine with me.

 

[martha]

FOX-- You're smart and I like you.

 

[melon]

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

A student of Biblical translation history can trace where the homophobia originated over the centuries, and--let me give you a hint--it isn't in the source texts. For the most part, the Old Testament passages refer to archaic Ancient Near East practices and taboos that have no "modern translation"--that is, they didn't even have a proper ancient Greek or Latin translation, let alone a proper modern English translation.

The NIV translation of the Bible--published by Zondervan--is the worst offender of them all. It is sloppily translated and is extra homophobic. Their "99.9% accuracy" mainly refers to how it takes traditional conservative Christian interpretations and exaggerates them, I would say.

Perhaps this is the origin of the lawsuit?

 

[anitram]

Ah, Canada's constitution is slightly different in intention that way. It does outline what the government can/can't do in a way but it's less explicit as it underwent major reforms in 1983 with the inclusion of the charter of rights and freedoms, and has been a much more organic animal than the US Constitution and -- though nonetheless rigid -- is less explicit about what can/can't be done but is a summary of key principles and values.

Heya! Long time no talk.

The introduction of the Charter actually didn't reform the principles of federalism, enumerated in s. 92 of the BNA. Technically, our federal/provincial spheres are better enumerated than those of the Americans (just look at the comprehensive lists in s. 92), but there are also a couple of vague ones like "property and civil rights" and the POGG (peace, order and good government) clause which have allowed our courts to stray from the rigidity in the US.

Furthermore, our Supreme Court has affirmed the living tree doctrine many times, where the justices on the SCOTUS are, for the most part, hostile to that idea.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

Heya! Long time no talk.

The introduction of the Charter actually didn't reform the principles of federalism, enumerated in s. 92 of the BNA. Technically, our federal/provincial spheres are better enumerated than those of the Americans (just look at the comprehensive lists in s. 92), but there are also a couple of vague ones like "property and civil rights" and the POGG (peace, order and good government) clause which have allowed our courts to stray from the rigidity in the US.

Furthermore, our Supreme Court has affirmed the living tree doctrine many times, where the justices on the SCOTUS are, for the most part, hostile to that idea.

Heh, hey there. You didn't ever decide to go to Western for law, by any chance, did you?

 

[anitram]

^

I'd PM you but you don't have PM capability!

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

FOX-- You're smart and I like you.

Thanks martha. I didn't see this when I was replying to anitram, else I would have saved the double post and replied there. You tried to send me a PM the other day but my inbox was full. I didn't reply to it or anything because I didn't get it, also I'm not a prem. user. Just thought I'd let you know I wasn't being rude and ignoring it though

I'd PM you but you don't have PM capability!

That's true, I don't. There's always email? maasquarade [.\at'] hotmail [/.dot'] com. Ignore the dots and slashes, obviously. Poorly done obfuscation ftw.

 

[INDY500]

I'm fairly certain this fellow doesn't have a case.

Just because some one sues doesn't mean that we all need to worry. . .Frivolous lawsuits happen everyday and life goes on.

They still cost you money in defending yourself. Which is why the Catholic Church is no longer finding homes for children in Boston.

 

[anitram]

They still cost you money in defending yourself.

And when they get thrown out of court, that's accompanied by an award for costs.

 

[yolland]

That's true, I don't. There's always email?

You don't have to be premium to send and receive PMs now, though the saved message capacity is small (25 messages). I'm not sure if it's still possible to disable one's PM capacity entirely; it probably is, but unless you're having stalking/harassment issues (which should be reported of course), I can say the mods, at least, would strongly appreciate it if people didn't do that, since it's much faster and easier for us to interact with members when needed via PM rather than email--that way, we know the address is current, we get reply notices automatically upon logging in here (and don't have to pick them out from a thicket of spam), and any issues either party might be having with their email account unbeknownst to the other (this happened to me last month ) won't be a factor.

I know this is from a few weeks ago, but what a load of shite.

The above is horrible, personalised, offensive, nonsense that should not be tolerated.

Why is it ok for the extreme left wing on FYM to go tossing around accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc at anyone that doesn't share their take on things?

Why is it ok that the left-wing on FYM get away with this crap ALL THE TIME?

This person Martha obviously does not have a lot of faith in her own ability to argue a point if she posts the above extremist, offensive, bigoted nonsense every time she is challenged.

Why didn't you report the post at the time, rather than (incorrectly) assuming any mods had read it, then follow up with a PM if you found the response inadequate? Do you honestly think your post here is any improvement at all on the very same tone you're complaining about?

I feel like you want to paint people who hold racist worldviews in this brush of virulent hatred and it's not that way. In the same way those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either. It's not that simple, and yet the views are still hurtful and problematic even those who hold them "dont' mean" for them to be.

There's certainly a good way and a bad way to go about making a case for racist/homophobic/etc. biases being present in someone's argument--"I think there's some unexamined racism underlying your thinking here" has a much better chance of getting someone to consider the merits of that claim than "What a fucking, pathetic heap of racist bullshit!!"--but I agree, I don't think it's reasonable at all to deem the diagnosis itself beyond the pale. I've been told myself before (not necessarily in here that I can think of, but certainly in real life) that there was racism or sexism in my thinking on some particular issue, and I don't explode with indignation and assume the person meant to morally equate me to some sort of violent despot when that happens; I ask them to explain their reasoning, think about it, then say why I agree or disagree. That's a necessary conversation to be able to have. It is true, though, that making such claims hatefully puts you in the position of being guilty of some of the very same things you're railing against; I think one can be sensitive to and realistic about the fact that tensions run high on certain issues, especially among those who've suffered considerable personal pain on account of it, without losing sight of that point.

We have laws against racial discrimination so if they are equal then why not take away the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Catholic charities in Massachusetts got out of child adoption services because that state held their beliefs against gay adoption to be discriminatory, so they just got out of the business rather than face lawsuits. Someone, somewhere, would challenge the First Amendment rights of a church to refuse to marry people of the same-sex.

They could try, but the case wouldn't go anywhere. Churches can and do refuse to marry interfaith couples all the time, for example, despite such couples having full legal rights to marry, and those churches are well within their rights to do so--a religious wedding ceremony at a church of one's choosing isn't a protected right at all. The adoption process is not a religious ceremony and so is not analogous.

The Bible in all legal sense shouldn't have anything to do with the federal courts, so actually he may be making a brilliant move to prove a point and shut some people up.

May or may not be his exact motive, but I agree, the case has 'filed-expressly-to-make-a-point' written all over it. (Fowler is representing himself because, unsuprisingly, he couldn't get a lawyer to take the case, and no, he isn't a lawyer himself.)

 

[INDY500]

I feel like you want to paint people who hold racist worldviews in this brush of virulent hatred and it's not that way. In the same way those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either. It's not that simple, and yet the views are still hurtful and problematic even those who hold them "dont' mean" for them to be.

Now couldn't it be possible--just possible--that the same might be true of those who oppose gay marriage?

I understand your point, yet you say

those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either.

As if any failure to fully condone all homosexual lifestyle choices is a symptom of a phobia on my part.
It's not my place to condemn or judge people in their private lives as I certainly wouldn't want mine judged. But we all have the right to withhold our condoning or sanctioning of something we feel is not, in our judgement, in the best interests of society. I happen to feel that way about same-sex marriage. I also feel that way about race-based affirmative action, does that automatically make me anti-black? Some would say so rather than argue the merits. I could list all kind of things and so could you I'm sure, some we might even agree on.
But I don't feel my wishing to maintain the normative ways of forming a family -- recognizing the unique qualities that only a man and a women can bring -- makes me mentally ill. Old-fashioned maybe.

 

[INDY500]

Legitimate question (for real): Have religious organizations who refuse to recognize mixed marriages (Catholic churches for example) lost their tax-exempt status? Have churches who refuse to recognize racially mixed marriages lost theirs as well?


Your arguments are always based on a fear of what may happen. Living in fear is no way to live.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Church Loses Tax Exemption Over Civil Unions

A Methodist church group that refuses to allow gay couples to hold civil unions in a board walk pavilion has lost its state property tax exemption. The state Department of Environmental Protection dropped the exemption for the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. "It's clear the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," said DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson. It's not clear how much money is involved. It is clear to get the exemption, property has to be equally available to everyone. And while this particular group does not approve of gay unions on religion grounds, such unions are legal in New Jersey. The tax exemption is allowed for the rest of the boardwalk and beachfront property owned by the association. The decision means that the association would have to pay property taxes on the pavilion and the land on which it sits for 2006 through 2008. The state's action then is more symbolic than monetary. And it's not over. The Division of Civil Rights is investigating complaints by two lesbian couples they were denied use of the pavilion. That investigation prompted a federal lawsuit saying the state investigation infringes on the association's speech and religion rights.

Threat of lawsuits is certainly not a justification to withhold equal protection if it does indeed apply to same-sex marriages. But it's hardly living in fear to imagine some very real 1st Amendment ramifications.

 

[melon]

Does that Methodist Church rent that property out to other non-Methodist individuals and organizations? The way that article reads, it wasn't a lawsuit trying to force the Methodist church group to perform a civil union; it was trying to use the property to do so. Imagine a church arguing that they didn't want to rent out their property to blacks? That is not allowed, no matter what someone's personal beliefs about blacks are.

Without more information, however, I cannot tell if this was the case; but it doesn't appear at all that it is about forcing a church's minister to perform a ceremony against his will.

 

[yolland]

Ocean Grove, New Jersey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Hoffman, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Camp Meeting Association, was quoted as saying that the association considers the Pavilion to be as much of a religious structure as the Tabernacle or the Youth Temple and that it would not permit same-sex civil union ceremonies to be conducted there, arguing that this was the position of the United Methodist Church.

A local advocacy group, Ocean Grove United, disputes this, contending that the issue involves public, not religious, property [source: Asbury Park Press, June 21 2007]. They contend that the beach and Boardwalk Pavilion are open to the public and that the Camp Meeting Association has accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. They also cite the Association's application to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state's "Green Acres Program", which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (Democrat), in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."
.........................................................................
Brian Raum, counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian conservative legal organization representing the Camp Meeting Association, argued that "disaster relief is available to anyone" in defending the use of public funds to repair the Great Auditorium when it was damaged in an hurricane. He said that the Methodist association had never represented itself as anything but a religious organization.

Complicating matters further is that the Camp Meeting Association gave up a degree of property ownership rights for the boardwalk and beach in the 19th century to avoid taxation:

" OCEAN GROVE, June 4.--By a decision of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation handed down today Ocean Grove's $3,000,000 beach front, the property of the Camp Meeting Association, is to escape taxation. It was shown to the board by the association's legal representative, Samuel A. Patterson, that the valuable strip of land, with its board walk, had been dedicated years ago by the association as a public highway, and not therefore subject to taxation. ---The New York Times, June 5, 1908 "

 

[INDY500]

Without more information, however, I cannot tell if this was the case; but it doesn't appear at all that it is about forcing a church's minister to perform a ceremony against his will.

That's not really my fear.
This case is much like several Boy Scout cases. An organization under legal attack for it's views on homosexuality in many parts of the country.

Should same-sex education become legal would religious schools, for example, be able to teach that homosexuality is a sin if that is their belief and still receive charters from the state. Would sermons be allowed to be broadcast over TV or radio if they contained language that some communities might begin to list as "hate-speech"?

And of coarse we had a thread a few months ago about the San Diego fertility clinic that was sued because of their religious objections to providing services for a lesbian couple.

 

[melon]

That's not really my fear.
This case is much like several Boy Scout cases. An organization under legal attack for it's views on homosexuality in many parts of the country.

The Boy Scouts aren't under "legal attack," except in cases where, as a "private organization," they wish to be treated like a "public organization" and get special favors from state and local governments that only public organizations get under normal circumstances.

Non-discrimination laws aren't going away, and, in a civilized, modern society, nor should they. If these churches, in their non-religious capacities, wish to discriminate against people, they must accept that they can only do so as a private organization, which means losing special favors and some tax exempt statuses that only public organizations receive on a normal basis.

After all, as an extreme example, there is nothing that stops the KKK from discriminating against anyone they like, in terms of who they wish to admit into their organization. And, as a private organization that entertains no illusions about being a public organization whatsoever, they're left alone to do what they want.

Should same-sex education become legal would religious schools, for example, be able to teach that homosexuality is a sin if that is their belief and still receive charters from the state. Would sermons be allowed to be broadcast over TV or radio if they contained language that some communities might begin to list as "hate-speech"?

Religious schools already have religious education courses that are wholly unregulated by the state, and are still accredited. They're free to preach what they want. Now if those beliefs translate into bad educational practices on traditional subjects, like science, for instance, then I'm guessing that their accreditation will be in trouble regardless of what they say about homosexuality. As it stands, most religious schools, except Catholic schools, seem to have trouble with this concept, and aren't accredited anyway.

As for your worries about "hate speech," we have no hate speech laws. If we did, then AM radio would have been shut down en masse 30 years ago. Much of what is spouted on that medium is already hateful nonsense, and there's no threat of it ever going away.

And of coarse we had a thread a few months ago about the San Diego fertility clinic that was sued because of their religious objections to providing services for a lesbian couple.

And what does this have to do with religion? A business is not given latitude to violate anti-discrimination laws, unlike churches. If that same fertility clinic denied access to blacks or fundamentalist Christians, because they happened to have "religious objections" to them, then they'd get equally in trouble.

So why all this support for discriminating against gays? Because you don't like them and aren't one of them? Well, isn't that just self-serving and short-sighted, because, as far as I see it, most of your stances could easily be seen as support for the right to discriminate against anyone you don't like--including discrimination against Christians.

 

[Irvine511]

I understand your point, yet you say
As if any failure to fully condone all homosexual lifestyle choices is a symptom of a phobia on my part.

could you please tell me what are the specific "homosexual lifestyle choices" i've made and continue to make? i've been dying to know.

 

[Irvine511]

And of coarse we had a thread a few months ago about the San Diego fertility clinic that was sued because of their religious objections to providing services for a lesbian couple.

so should pharmacists be allowed to deny birth control to unmarried women if it's in accordance with their religious beliefs? the morning after pill? or, even more outlandish, deny Viagra to unmarried men?

these are all heterosexual lifestyle choices, no? don't my religious beliefs ultimately trump said heterosexual lifestyle issues and choices?

 

[melon]

so should pharmacists be allowed to deny birth control to unmarried women if it's in accordance with their religious beliefs? the morning after pill? or, even more outlandish, deny Viagra to unmarried men?

Why stop with "unmarried"? The Catholic Church is against birth control for all, married or unmarried.

When we start allowing exceptions to anti-discrimination, we open the door to a flood of it. And there's nothing at all that says that, someday, liberals couldn't start developing "religious beliefs" that forbid them to do business with conservatives.

Basically, those who trumpet the right to discriminate the most are those who think that only "other people" get discriminated against.

 

[yolland]

I understand your point, yet you say

those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either

As if any failure to fully condone all homosexual lifestyle choices is a symptom of a phobia on my part.

I think, though, that explaining how someone could reasonably consider that a possibility was precisely his point:

These people are not raving, foaming-at-the-mouth racists. They wouldn't support a lynching or legal segragation. They have black (or white as the case may be) friends. They just think it's "not right" for blacks and whites to marry, and they are sincere in their belief.

That doesn't change the fact that their belief still represents a racist worldview.

I.e., a person can be comfortable with certain elements of the 'interracial lifestyle,' yet still show "symptoms" of racist views, like assuming that interracial marriages inevitably mean emotionally messed-up children, or that an interracial couple couldn't possibly have the same depth of love and understanding for each other that two people of the same racial background could, etc. Of course that doesn't mean said person must necessarily be some sort of cartoon-stereotype, slur-spewing redneck. But a couple in, say, the position Sean and his wife were in should be able to state forthrightly that such views are prejudicial, deeply hurtful and even dehumanizing to them; they shouldn't have to stick solely to reciting talking points about how mixed-race children are no more likely to be messed up than other children, or that mixed-race couples love each other just as much as same-race couples do, etc. Appealing to another's moral imagination and empathy is a very different mode of argument from debating the logistics of how a situation might unfold in practice. Again, I do think there are good and bad ways to go about doing this, and I do understand that conveyed in a certain way, a diagnosis of prejudice in someone's thinking can come across as suggesting all the person really wants is to scream at you, not to get you to acknowledge their points. And of course you can always disagree with them--but they have no more obligation to automatically accept that self-justification than you do to agree with them.

the unique qualities that only a man and a women can bring

I still don't think you've explained what these unique qualities are with reference to a romantic relationship--and I guess also to childrearing?--other than the tautological ones, i.e. that males aren't females and vice versa. What is a gay man intrinsically doomed never to get from his relationship with his partner that a straight man is intrinsically guaranteed to get from his wife (again, other than the blindingly obvious...dudes don't have vaginas) and why is that critical to a successful marriage? What are gay, or lesbian, parents terminally incapable of giving any children they have that straight parents are guaranteed to be capable of providing, and why is that critical to a child's health and happiness?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Are the "unique qualities" that only men and women can bring just the fact that they are different in makeup-due to socialization or other factors?

Why can't two men or two women be just as different in makeup? People are different in so many ways other than gender. I think it's always the unique qualities that two people can bring and how and why they work with each other. I don't see how that necessitates a male and female.

 

[INDY500]

could you please tell me what are the specific "homosexual lifestyle choices" i've made and continue to make? i've been dying to know.

I realize that's a bit cliché and clunky and I almost said "political" because that's what I really think should be fair to criticize or not agree with; political and public expressions of homosexuality (like redefining marriage). Just as you should be able to question the policies of a Christian Church or heterosexual public expressions without being called a God-hater or heterophobic (interestingly, a word that doesn't even exist on my spell-check). And aren't we having a similar problem in this years presidential election? The deep suspicion, not completely unjustified, that much of the opposition to Barack Obama is really rooted in his race.
But anyway I went for private because sometimes, like in the mid 80's, as we learned more about AIDS and it's transmission methods it should have been ok to bring into question the private sexual practices of promiscuity or gay bath-houses without being label as homophobic. Right? Now I'm old enough to remember the 80's and in hindsight that reaction or say the practices of ACTUP are somewhat understandable as there was a time when the suffering and death in the gay community was, shamefully, largely ignored by society and much of the medical community.

However, by the 90's, it should have been fair to point out that government AIDS spending had become grossly disproportional in relationship to other much more common diseases like stroke, diabetes or lung disease. Or point out how hurtful the brutal public mockery of especially the Catholic Church had become. Or point out how ridiculous and almost fascist the whole "AIDS ribbon" situation had become -- without being label anti-gay. Right?

Discrimination and bigotry do exist, and it is often is directed towards homosexuals. But marriage and family is at the foundation of civilization so if we are going to change our very notion of what those words mean then isn't it ok for some to say "hey wait a minute, let's think about this"? The same "hey wait a minute, let's think about this" we all wish the White House had entertained prior to invading Iraq. The same "hey wait a minute" that should be part of any public policy discussion.

Same-sex marriage should become a reality on it's merits should it not? Because it is the right and worthy thing to do; a natural progression on the road to equal rights for all. Publicly debated with it's existence depending upon the weight of it's proponents arguments. Not by judicial fiat, against the will of the majority, with objections summarily dismissed as bigotry and opponents labeled as homophobes.

 

[anitram]

Same-sex marriage should become a reality on it's merits should it not? Because it is the right and worthy thing to do; a natural progression on the road to equal rights for all. Publicly debated with it's existence depending upon the weight of it's proponents arguments. Not by judicial fiat, against the will of the majority, with objections summarily dismissed as bigotry and opponents labeled as homophobes.

How long do you suppose African Americans should have politely waited in line for the will of the majority to afford them their rights? And how long should the women's suffrage movement have waited before the will of the male majority thought it fit to allow them to vote, go to work, and attend schools?