MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
Then, does that also mean that we get to take "In God We Trust" off the money, and "Under God" out of the pledge?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?
- Thread starter Green Gaia
- Start date
Then, does that also mean that we get to take "In God We Trust" off the money, and "Under God" out of the pledge?
Actually, "under God" was added later to the pledge of allegiance. It happened back in the 1930's if my memory serves me correct. The original pledge did not have under God in it.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
So I take it that you would be strongly opposed to removing marriage from the civil arena. Guess GG was right.
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
I'm not sure what you mean...
I just think that the legal system is already able to accommodate gay marriages with very few changes, so I see no reason why it we need an entirely new one. A word can have more than one meaning. Setting up an entirely new system is a waste of time, and simply an unnecessary exercise in people-pleasing.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
I don't consider people-pleasing unnecessary. If a solution can be found that takes the feelings and concerns of everyone into account, then that is the route I prefer.
It would not be an entirely new system - just change the word "marriage" to "civil union" for everyone. I don't see why it would be a big deal physically. It's the psychological barrier that would be hardest to overcome.
Don't get me wrong. My primary concern is equality, so given that extending marriage to BGLT is the easiest way to achieve that, I support it. (Plus, it puts more pressure on the religious right to be willing to compromise.) But if there were a way to make both sides happy, I would prefer that.
So you are saying you are not willing to compromise to get what you want?
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
No, I just think it's a stupid way to compromise.
Seriously, someone needs to explain to me why "marriage" can only refer to religious unions. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
You seem stuck on that. I'm not so sure it is about what I think so much as what could work to make everyone happy. You must remember, whether you like it or not, the religious right already has things acceptable to them the way things are.
If things are going to change, perhaps a little flexibility is in order.
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
I'm not willing to just accept a compromise because someone said so, or even because it's the only offer. Maybe instead you can answer my question.
So giving Gay's equal rights would not be changing anything or pleasing people?
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
If you're interested in pleasing people, then it would please me if someone would answer my question instead of ignoring it.
Why do you believe that the religious have a monopoly on the word marriage? And, do you think that a word can't have two definitions?
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
It's not about people pleasing for the sake of popularity. It's about balancing the civil rights of one group against the religious liberty of another group.
No, I don't believe that a word can have only one meaning. But I do believe that the word marriage has a sacred meaning to many. It is considered one of the holy sacraments. It would be like if the government handed out licenses for baptisms. It would not be the end of the world to say that civil baptisms are not the same as religious baptisms, and that the word "baptism" has more than one meaning. But from my perspective, I would prefer to avoid it if possible. Granted that one can easily argue that since marriage has been in the secular lexicon for ages the church can no longer legitimately claim it to be purely religious.
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
If a word can have more than one meaning, then changing the system to make sure it only has one is unnecessary. And, really, if this is the best compromise between the two groups, I think maybe we should toss the paperwork and go back to brainstorming.
Yes, a word can have two definitions. I have never said that Gay's cannot be religious, so they could be married in a church too if they wish so no one holds a monopoly.
If you mean that people should be married by the state, that goes against separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious word that the state has no business using. As long as you keep the word marriage in the government, people will get upset and have a right to vote on state issues.
Removing a word that is sacred to many, takes the dog out of the fight. It separates religion from the issue of Gay rights. I would think that would be useful to further your agenda.
A church can decide to marry who ever they like. People do not get to vote on what a church does. People can however vote on what the state does and stop the state from marrying you as you well know.
A legal document between two Gay people is not in conflict with the majority of religious people who are standing in your way. They have no religious grounds to oppose a legal agreement. If they attempted to stop that, they would be labeled as the bigots they are. Removing the word marriage from what the state does would take away any justification for people to vote against your union.
A legal document between two Gay people is not in conflict with the majority of religious people who are standing in your way. They have no religious grounds to oppose a legal agreement. If they attempted to stop that, they would be labeled as the bigots they are. Removing the word marriage from what the state does would take away any justification for people to vote against your union.
Pah
Uber all member
From ignorance of church history and of Puritan history, it is easy to come to the wrong conclusion. Let me help correct that ignorance.
The early church performed blessings for couples. It was not a sacrament for hundreds of years.
Christ did not participate in the marriage where the loaves and fishes fed so many. If anything, Christ made it a sacrament for the reception.
The Puritans, when establishing the Bay Colony (soon to become Massachusetts) specifically made marriage a secular, governmental affair. They established the tradition we have today of allowing clergy to marry couples but maintaining government control.
There is NO sacrament in legal marriage today - it consists of an oath of the couple, witnessed by an agent commissioned by the government to perform marriage who duly records it for government use.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Heh, I've been expecting you to show up with this argument.
You can argue your view of history. It doesn't change the reality that for many people it IS a religious sacrament.
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
Well, see, my problem is that nobody has demonstrated to me that the word "marriage" belongs to the religious. I realize that many religions use the term, but I don't see why its even necessary to limit its definition.
How exactly does it infringe on your religious liberty (since, thats what this thread is about), that a non Christian chooses to call their relationship a marriage? How does the government, an entity separate and not interfering with the church, giving out licenses that say "marriage" on them somehow keep you from practicing your religion? If it doesn't, then I think you have no real argument.