After rereading about the first 5 pages of this thread, I find same old same old points being made, plus other posts that speak directly to the political debate. Then I see those resisted (as expected). So, again not really about "why do you care so much" but seemingly more about, "is today the day we can convince you to abandon your religious convictions to uphold our version or righteous secular claims? If not, then let's debate this, ad nauseam in the hopes that later today or tomorrow might be that day."
It interests me that you state the secular claims are 'righteous' (in an ironical sense) and that the religious ones are 'convictions'. Do you think one should hold sway over the other? I'm not prejudging your answer on that, I think it's a tricky question that is at the heart of this issue.
I'll remind some of you, or inform others who may not know, I have consistently favored SSM, but see it as not going far enough, politically. I don't feel like getting into it's limitations on this thread, but do wish to note that I truly am favoring of SSM, while also not favoring the unabashed agenda that comes with such political support. Again, I am a B in the LGBT community and find this is one of those issues that really has very little to nothing to do with B (or T) but somehow if we are all lumped in together it makes it seem like there's a bunch of us and a few of 'them' that need to be confronted for their wayward thinking on this.
I'm an S, which doesn't even get me a guernsey in the LGBT space, and feel pretty passionately about this. If anything, that would be by simple answer to the OP. Many fighting against marriage equality are similarly 'S's. I think it behooves us to look beyond personal impact.
So, as noted before, the response was doing exactly what was stated in this point - stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle (of SSM), and if they disagree on religious grounds, treating it as akin to being racist.
Kind of. Your religion dictates your actions, but you should still be accountable to the laws of the land. I don't want a Satanist able to produce evidence that culling is a legitimate part of their worship, and then have it excused (as an extreme example). Have whatever belief you want, by all means, but when said belief impacts on others, your own personal religious convictions becomes secondary in my opinion. I would say similar to an anti-theist who doesn't like people preaching in a public space, fwiw.
do I want to be on the same side as that? Especially since L and G have notoriously been quite prejudice toward B in many instances?
As have S's. But ultimately, you're going to have to make up your own mind. Ultimately, whenever you can be the bigger person, I find it works out healthier in the long term. It can be the harder path, I get that. Also, the warts on this aren't restricted to one side of the fence.
Used to be that the long, decades fight to getting SSM going had patience and strong sense of virtue. Now, it seems like there is no patience and virtue be damned, "we" are hungry and we want it all, screw you if you disagree with 'us.'
Used to be that there was little choice BUT to be polite about it. Generally, human nature is unchanged, I find. The environment has changed substantially, and that impacts directly on approach and behavior.
For me, the flip side to all this is that if patience were to persist, a whole lot of Christians would be far more accepting of the political fight. But the fight has turned into an agenda that even I see reason to fight back on, and it stems from sense of religious freedoms. In post #127 of the thread, it was asked:
<snip quote re: accepting blacks into restaurants>
And IMO, the reply to that needs to be explored. If the same owner can demonstrate that this is actual tenet of their religion, then they ought to have at least consideration for engaging in that. But, I imagine a whole lot of debate would ensue, that would be far shorter lived than this one, for it's very hard to find a known religion that advocates for such. But if hypothetically there was one that did, then it is plausible to think religious freedom would be such that it is a reason to disallow such an owner to engage in such service. Probably won't bode well for their business, but is choice they'd have to live with as long as they adhere to such tenet.
This is the crux of the entire issue, really. Why should group A be able to discriminate against group B in everyday life? Why are they set apart from society? I'm not one who would favour forced inclusion to religious ceremonies (eg. pastor forced to marry homosexuals), but in terms of my shopfront, I shouldn't be able to prevent black people coming in. Or allow them to sit only at the back. Or prevent guide-dogs. Or prevent homosexuals. Or atheists.
It's sometimes hard to remember this if living in a Christian dominant society, but this is not anti-Christian or anti-religious freedoms. This is, in fact, quite the opposite. I don't want some atheist shopkeeper refusing to serve Catholics. I don't want to legitimize Muslim 'No-go' zones in London. I don't want Satanists legally culling. Wherever you land on the 'religious rights' vs 'secular rights' question, it needs to be something that can be consistently applied if you are to avoid cognitive dissonance. I would suspect you are too thoughtful to be able to comfortably live with inconsistent philosophy.
In this debate, with SSM, I regularly do not get impression that it is discrimination against L and G, but is against SSM. Seems the counter agenda doesn't wish to paint it that way, or rather doesn't have the patience (any more) to understand it in such terms. So, as long as hypotheticals are on the table, imagine if the type of marriage was one between a 52 year old man and a 15 year young male. And imagine that such a marriage arrangement is now legal in society (again going with hypotheticals). But also imagine that a great many people in that society dislike this type of marriage arrangement, so much, that they don't wish to utilize their business service by supporting it and participating in the ceremony via their business. Would you blame them if they chose not to, or would you think it doesn't matter their personal beliefs, at all, and that the law is the law and they must support it, professionally, and have zero complaints? If they do have complaints, is it fair to label those as strictly anti-gay, since it is two males who are getting married?
You're hypothesizing that underage marriage is legal? Whether straight or gay, I would march in the streets against that, since the principle of informed consent appears to be broken. This would apply even were the marriage between a man and girl, and even were it fully supported by religious belief. Which is actually not so hypothetical at all. If the law approved of this, then the law would be an arse. But I think offering this up as an argument against consensual adults marrying is beyond the pale. If you're instead suggesting that societal ills should be demonstrated against regardless of personal impact, then I agree. In so demonstrating, I run the risk of being arrested, or for others to vocally disagree with me. Which is what is happening here. I cannot expect to demonstrate against a popularly held belief (as in your hypothetical) and not face opposition. To be clear, though, claims of Christian persecution in Western society far outweighs Christian persecution in Western society. Two gay people marrying, even if right in front of a Christian, is not persecution. Just as me masturbating is not, whatever their beliefs on that as a sin.
All rhetorical questions which I can anticipate responses to, some of which will likely miss the point.
Some may. Take my answers and let me know, I guess.
For me, this whole topic is tricky for several reasons, some of which I cited and fairly simple, in that if you don't support the type of business request being made because it goes against religious beliefs, then freedom ought to be that you shouldn't have to engage in that request.
This seems to be applied very inconsistently. Are bakers going to reject atheists? Blacks? Muslims? Uncircumcised males? People who are marrying in mixed fabrics?
To what benefit is such an approach, in terms of society? Why does society have to subjugate human rights to a plethora of religious beliefs? What the heck is 'freedom' in the context with which you are using it? Why does divorce never come up in these discussions? Which biblical interpretation is accurate, and who is the authority, or is this purely around what people THINK. Anyway, this line of discussion seems to be wheeled out as an argument of convenience, as near as I can tell, rather than consistently applied to all such issues. It is generally disingenuous. I've never met anyone pursue it consistently across all groups. I'm sure such people exist. They're rare.
The religious freedom aspect is the last hurdle that I see to the SSM ongoing discussion, and I think more patience and less name calling would be beneficial to the LG community. Once this hurdle is overcome, then we can get to place where marriage equality of the real variety can occur. I've been patient on that for well over 30 years now, I think I can wait awhile longer for the children at the table to express their little temper tantrums.
Unfortunately I can't agree. Australia is more secular than America, more universally in favour of marriage equality (I'm guessing a bit there, to be honest) and far behind in terms of legislation. I can't explain why, expect that the issue doesn't get enough noise here, and therefore the political risk of action outweighs the political benefit.
