Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:

[Ming]

Oh yea, and those who thinks that if homosexual relationships is allowed, then everything else (like polygamy, etc.) will be allowed.

GET REAL!

Homosexual marriage aren't allowed, at least not worldwide. That means that straight marriage shouldn't be allowed either. According to the above theory that is.

 

[Ming]

Oh yea, just to make another point. To those Christians believers out there who are against homosexuality + call us 'sinful', you should look back at what you have done in your history of 'holiness'. Maybe that might have you reflect on your personality.

The church has hurt far more than it has helped. In every single country that has been colonized by Christians the indigenous people have been the victims of genocide. Christians have in the past used the bible to justify slavery. The church has subjugated women for centuries and continues to do so and the Catholic Church has been molestering children and covering it up for centuries. The church does not help anyone unless they have an alterior motive; namely money and potential suckers to convert. (Of course, other than the ones who actually HELP people. But isn't that better known as a hospital?)

Funny how ironic it is, huh?

Of course, this is not ALL Christians. There are many well-mannered ones too. I'm making quite a generalization here; but that's mainly how people see it.

 

[foolish heart]

Separation of church and state is to keep the government from imposing laws on people's religious beliefs (why the pilgrims came to America in the first place)

As far as Christianity goes, you are right that they should not judge you--

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (John 8:7)

1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Matthew 7:1-3)

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. (Romans 12:17-19)

On the other hand...

1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently


So, this is another area where attitude is very important. The truth is that homosexuality is a sin, and it is best for you to escape it. However, I think it is a mistake to separate homosexuality from the other sins, for anyone to mistreat homosexuals, or most of all to exclude them just because homosexuality is a sin of commission that has a lot of social demerit. Every single person in every church is sinful, including homosexuals is no more condoning of sin than including anyone else. Sexuality is something we all feel very strongly about... whether it is fornication, adultery, or homosexuality is not as much an issue as the attitude of pride rather than repentance that comes with it.

 

[Brendan]

I have a lot more respect for people who just come out and say they're homophobic than those who hide behind religion.

 

[Brendan]

Shit, I can't believe I forgot about this video. I find it applicable to this debate. He talks mainly about the Catholic church, but I believe it applies to all sects of Christianity... Except the Quakers lolz.

Dailymotion - The Intelligence² Debate - Stephen Fry (Unedited) - a Film & TV video

[EDIT]Well perhaps not entirely applicable, but provocative nonetheless.[/EDIT]

 

[Totenkindly]

This is very similar to Roger Williams' viewpoint, and that is where the concept of "separation between Church and State" comes from. He was also the founder of the first Baptist church in the New World. Ironically the Baptists originally gave us the separation between Church and State, but now it seems like they want to take it back.

I know. I don't like to sound negative, but I cannot avoid the observation that nowadays they'd like to preserve the boundary as long as it protects them as a minority but would like to remove it if they happen to be a majority. It's a shame especially if this is a deviation from their original heritage.

That sort of thing really really bothers me, not even just as a spiritual person but as a rational one. It's just so inherently unfair and hypocritical to me. The same rules should apply to everyone. If you don't want it done unto you, don't do it unto others.

There are churches that accept and have no issues with gay people. They would even officiate the wedding. I'd hope that a gay religious couple would seek a place like this if they want a religious ceremony, instead of asking a conservative church that isn't accepting to do so instead.

I think a majority conservative church has the right to not want or have gay people in their congregation, but those views shouldn't determine law.

Yup.

I think church and state should be separate in this area, and legal privileges should be based on civil unions determined by the state. ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." ~Jesus. Anyone heard of this guy? )

Churches should be free to determine what official membership in their group entails and what marriages they will recognize within that body.

Gay (and other) people should be free to look for religious bodies that reflect their own views.

Freedom for all, and the government should not be someone's trump card to impose their views on others.

Here's a tip though, no-one knows what's gonna happen in life, chook, but you can't live a lie either to keep every one happy. It will be hard, but if you can wait until you have independence from your parents, it tends to go smoother. I had several friends come out to thier parents with varying results, so prepare for the worst and hope for the best. If you guys are close, it won't be a surprise though.

Ming, I agree with the sentiments here. I have worked with trans teens in situations like this and it is very similar. If you feel you will get support from your parents, then it's good to let them be part of this with you; but if you're pretty sure it's going to cause a lot of headache, it's often better to wait for just a few more years until you're on your own and have the resources to take care of yourself. If you're still a minor under your parents' custody, then you could have some real struggles ahead. I've seen some real positive outcomes with parents, and I've seen some godawful ones up to and including physical abuse/assault... and the emotional trauma can linger.

I had issues with my family, initiated years after I became an adult, and still it was just very emotionally devastating; I can't imagine what it would have been like if I had still been a teen and they had still been my legal guardians.

I know a few years seems like a lifetime, but it's not. You have your whole life ahead of you.

Anyway, if you can find a local support LGBT support group, please do. Honestly, the experience of older people in the area who have already had to navigate such waters will be immensely helpful to you... and when bad stuff happens and you feel like you have nowhere to go and no one who cares.... you'll know there ARE people who want to help and who you can depend on.

Oh yea, just to make another point. To those Christians believers out there who are against homosexuality + call us 'sinful', you should look back at what you have done in your history of 'holiness'. Maybe that might have you reflect on your personality.

The church has hurt far more than it has helped. In every single country that has been colonized by Christians the indigenous people have been the victims of genocide. Christians have in the past used the bible to justify slavery. The church has subjugated women for centuries and continues to do so and the Catholic Church has been molestering children and covering it up for centuries. The church does not help anyone unless they have an alterior motive; namely money and potential suckers to convert. (Of course, other than the ones who actually HELP people. But isn't that better known as a hospital?)

Funny how ironic it is, huh?

Of course, this is not ALL Christians. There are many well-mannered ones too. I'm making quite a generalization here; but that's mainly how people see it.

Yes, it is a generalization.
No, I'm not sure it's "mainly how people see it."
You can speak for your own views, though, and let others speak for theirs.

From what I can see, Christianity has survived 2000 years and not because of its evangelistic properties, it's because there are things inherent to the faith that are positive and meaningful.

I see it as a double-edged sword.
It has been used to cause a lot of damage to people.
But I also have seen it miraculously change lives, give people strength to survive horrible experiences, motivate them to change and reach out to others, provide a lot of care to the homeless, needy, abandoned, and starving.

These are not necessarily the same people doing all these things over the centuries. But they have all been dumped under the umbrella of "Christian," which can confuse the issue.

 

[Totenkindly]

So, this is another area where attitude is very important. The truth is that homosexuality is a sin, and it is best for you to escape it.

No, the truth is that you believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Christians don't even agree on this issue... and I'm betting if 50% of the population had a homosexual orientation, the discourse would change drastically. It's easy for a majority to slur and conveniently categorize and rationalize what it doesn't understand.

However, I think it is a mistake to separate homosexuality from the other sins, for anyone to mistreat homosexuals, or most of all to exclude them just because homosexuality is a sin of commission that has a lot of social demerit. Every single person in every church is sinful, including homosexuals is no more condoning of sin than including anyone else. Sexuality is something we all feel very strongly about... whether it is fornication, adultery, or homosexuality is not as much an issue as the attitude of pride rather than repentance that comes with it.

And here is the problem -- when you start labeling someone's identity as "sinful" and compare it to a sin of "commission," you're on treacherous ground.

We're not talking about adultery, or fornication, or murder, or theft, or a host of other sins of commission. We're talking about identity. So when you label someone's identity as sinful, regardless of how they manifest themselves in the external world, you're necessarily slandering the person's self-worth. All these other things you are comparing homosexuality to are specific acts that are committed against another against their will, violating their right to life or equal value.

That's not what the homosexual preference actually is.

And so this is why your explanation is still viewed as highly offensive by people who have these things in different categories. You think you're being gracious and taking so much care about how you phrase things, without realizing it's not how you phrase it but your entire perspective that is offensive: You're judging people by inherent preferences, without any regard whatsoever to HOW they live or HOW they relate to others. For a gay person, it's the same as your damning someone for being black:

However, I think it is a mistake to separate being black from the other sins, for anyone to mistreat black people, or most of all to exclude them just because being black is a sin of commission that has a lot of social demerit. Every single person in every church is sinful, including black people is no more condoning of sin than including anyone else. Sexuality is something we all feel very strongly about... whether it is fornication, adultery, or being black is not as much an issue as the attitude of pride rather than repentance that comes with it.

Did you feel offended when reading this? Regardless of whether or not you agree with my example, my point really is to get across how offensively your nicely worded point about "how it's no worse a sin" comes across to gay people. If you felt repulsion, then my point succeeded. That's the feeling it triggers. That is what you are up against here. And this is why there won't ever be an agreement between the two sides.

... but I'm also going to beg to differ about the "homosexuality not being a worse sin" ... because that is not how it is actually practiced. Frankly, I think the Right makes a much bigger fuss over gay people being in office, versus people who have been caught in lies, or adultery, or other illegal activities. Violations of law and decency can and are forgiven and the perpetrator still allowed to serve; but being gay is death in right-wing politics. Same thing goes for the pulpit, in practice; you can recover from adultery and other sins, but if you're gay, forget it.

 

[Brendan]

Violations of law and decency can and are forgiven and the perpetrator still allowed to serve; but being gay is death in right-wing politics.

It's death even in New Jersey politics.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I know. I don't like to sound negative, but I cannot avoid the observation that nowadays they'd like to preserve the boundary as long as it protects them as a minority but would like to remove it if they happen to be a majority. It's a shame especially if this is a deviation from their original heritage.

That sort of thing really really bothers me, not even just as a spiritual person but as a rational one. It's just so inherently unfair and hypocritical to me. The same rules should apply to everyone. If you don't want it done unto you, don't do it unto others.

You make an excellent point. Instead of following the teachings of Christ they are simply behaving like everyone else.

In general religious conservatives want the Church to be protected from the State. On the other hand liberals want the State to be protected from the Church. The original idea was that "separation between Church and State" was to work in both directions.

The State and the Church are the two most influencial institutions. The idea is that if you don't keep them separate, then they slowly meld into one institution that is overly powerful and consequently overly corrupt. The two institutions must be kept separate (protection in both directions) in order to have hope that either could be free from much corruption.

 

[Seymour]

Sorry for the huge catch-up post, but here it is, anyway:

I think if you go back to the original Hebrew for:

Originally Posted by Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV)
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was staken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

You'll find that it's not an imperative. See: NETBible: Genesis 2:24

In fact, most translations use the word "will" rather than shall. As the above link says:

This statement, introduced by the Hebrew phrase עַל־כֵּן (’al-ken, “therefore” or “that is why”), is an editorial comment, not an extension of the quotation. The statement is describing what typically happens, not what will or should happen. It is saying, “This is why we do things the way we do.” It links a contemporary (with the narrator) practice with the historical event being narrated. The historical event narrated in v. 23 provides the basis for the contemporary practice described in v. 24. That is why the imperfect verb forms are translated with the present tense rather than future.

And linking to Exodus International may not be the most helpful of arguments, seeing as a number of the leaders have come out of the years, some have publicly apologized (video), included the co-founder who claims "we never 'cured' a single person." I think you'll find studies have found sexual orientation to be fairly immutable (although suppressing expression of one's sexuality is possible at some cost).

I was raised a conservative Christian (Church of Christ), believed and was baptized. My being gay put me through over a decade of struggling. I prayed to be made straight, avoided anyone I found attractive, read the Bible, prayed more. At the end of college, I was engaged to a woman—fortunately we broke off the engagement (not directly because of homosexual issues). When I look back on how unfair a marriage would have been to my wife, and I think of all the women living with half of what a marriage should be because they are married to gay men... I think there must be a better way. When I thinking about the depression, suicides and hazings suffered by gay teens... I think there must be a better way.

So, some of us have stood where you stand, believing what you believe. I agree that knowledge≠wisdom. However, it is equally true that the absence of knowledge is not inherently wise, either. God gave us eyes with which to see and minds with which to reason.

All Christians—of every denomination—interpret what the Bible says. None of us attempts to follow every law in the Bible. We reason about the intent behind the laws and try to live in accord with that intent; we try to obey those laws which seem most central. Being human, we fall short and depend upon God's grace. Our understanding changes how we interpret what the Bible says. Most of us today wouldn't claim that the Bible is pro-slavery, even though one can find support for slavery in both Old and New Testaments. Despite verses in support of slavery, we look at how slaves were accepted as believers and Jesus's general treatment of despised classes of people. We understand that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

So, given my upbringing I have some understanding your perspective, and I absolutely support your right to believe and express your belief. I'd gladly fund a legal defense of your right to express your beliefs (including your belief that homosexuality is wrong), were that right infringed upon. However, as a fellow INFP, I suspect your Ne will eventually find other perspectives and interpretations also have merit. One can see those as threats to security, or as challenges leading towards a greater understanding of God and the world.

I would highly recommend reading Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer. Not because it will change your mind (it won't), but because it gives a liberal but Evangelical take on the emergence of the Religious Right, and how it falls short of representing the message of Christ. Balmer goes back to the roots of the Baptist denomination, and how separation of church and state occurred for the benefit (in part) of churches. Denominations are not helped by being established and funded by the state, nor is belief helped by enforced piety. In fact, he argues that the "mainline denominations" were badly hurt because they over-identified with power structures and political affiliations, hence their current decline.

It's hard to come up with a non-cynical reason why homosexuality should be the focus of religious conservatives these days. Jesus focused far more on preaching against wealth and about helping the poor and marginalized than he did castigating people for their sexual behavior. I think it not entirely coincidental the specter of the "homosexual agenda" works well for both fund-raising and voter-turnout. Focusing so much attention on homosexuality allows true sinfulness to be "out there" in the world, and not something that involves good God-fearing Christians.

I do appreciate your directness, and don't think everyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons is a homophobe. I do think it wrong that homosexuality should come between a believer and his or her faith, but we disagree on where the problem lies.

 

[cafe]

Frankly, I wish I could come to some other understanding of the relevant scriptures than homosexuality being a sin. I have read some other views on how those scriptures should be understood and it seems to me to be a pretty big stretch. TBH, I tend to like gay people a lot more than most of my fellow Christians (irl anyway) and personally, I don't see what the big deal is. I have a lot of cognitive dissonance about the whole thing.

As it is, I am well aware of the many other (and more harmful, IMO) sins committed by Christians -- have been on the receiving end as well as the committing end countless times.

Politically, though, I am very clear about how I feel and what I think. The government has no business enforcing my religious beliefs onto my fellow citizens, gay or straight. I believe we should have civil unions for tax, insurance, etc purposes and marriage should be the domain of the church and it's equivalents. I don't even see a reason to make the unions two person only things.

 

[Totenkindly]

...Politically, though, I am very clear about how I feel and what I think. The government has no business enforcing my religious beliefs onto my fellow citizens, gay or straight. I believe we should have civil unions for tax, insurance, etc purposes and marriage should be the domain of the church and it's equivalents.

Thank for your post, it sort of sets everything back in perspective. While I did offer my opinion on it, my opinion is sort of irrelevant; it seems to me that one's position on the morality of homosexuality is really unrelated to how civil unions should be handled in a secular society.

 

[Seymour]

Frankly, I wish I could come to some other understanding of the relevant scriptures than homosexuality being a sin. I have read some other views on how those scriptures should be understood and it seems to me to be a pretty big stretch. TBH, I tend to like gay people a lot more than most of my fellow Christians (irl anyway) and personally, I don't see what the big deal is. I have a lot of cognitive dissonance about the whole thing.

Well, honestly... me, too. I think I'd feel much more at peace spiritually if I did. The best argument I've heard comes from Dirt, Greed and Sex by William Countryman. His general argument is that most of the laws about sex and marriage in the Bible boil down to laws of purity and property. Even so, I find him more convincing about Old Testament law, and can't quite follow him as far as he wants to go otherwise.

I'd be fine with "civil unions" for everyone, too, and just leave marriage to religious organizations. However, as a practical matter it seems like that's unlikely to happen. It's too bad, though, since "marriage" carries such emotional weight for people and has religious connotations as well.

 

[Beorn]

Politically, though, I am very clear about how I feel and what I think. The government has no business enforcing my religious beliefs onto my fellow citizens, gay or straight. I believe we should have civil unions for tax, insurance, etc purposes and marriage should be the domain of the church and it's equivalents. I don't even see a reason to make the unions two person only things.

Thank for your post, it sort of sets everything back in perspective. While I did offer my opinion on it, my opinion is sort of irrelevant; it seems to me that one's position on the morality of homosexuality is really unrelated to how civil unions should be handled in a secular society.

I have a lot of other things I need to address... but, this is probably the most important. Somehow the establishment clause and free exercise clause have been twisted to make people feel that political opinions cannot have religious reasons behind them. This is absurd. Any political view is going to be supported by a certain worldview. To say that political views can only be based on non-religious worldviews is frankly discriminatory.

There also seems to be a basic misunderstanding of secular and religious. All that secular means in the strict sense is "pertaining to this world." Religions while certainly concerned with the spiritual are also plainly concerned with the secular and what occurs in this world. So simply because civil unions are completely secular does not mean religion cannot inform my political opinion on civil unions. Moreover, I would argue the reasons behind supporting Civil Unions are not purely secular. They generally are a result of some alternative worldview whether it be humanism, liberal christianity, or pluralism that postulates that homosexuality is an acceptable social practice and thus homosexuals have a right to be joined together and have the same basic rights as heterosexual married couples.

I submit that the concept of anyone having a right to anything is not a secular concept, but must be based in a worldview that goes beyond the secular. So then it is not wrong to frame the debate as a conflict of worldviews. This is not the same thing as debating whether we should put a stop sign up on 22nd street.

edit: Don't forget what I posted here about Washington's view that morality and religion are the two pillars that uphold government.

 

[Brendan]

I submit that the concept of anyone having a right to anything is not a secular concept, but must be based in a worldview that goes beyond the secular.

Why?

 

[Seymour]

I have a lot of other things I need to address... but, this is probably the most important. Somehow the establishment clause and free exercise clause have been twisted to make people feel that political opinions cannot have religious reasons behind them. This is absurd. Any political view is going to be supported by a certain worldview. To say that political views can only be based on non-religious worldviews is frankly discriminatory.

Of course one's religious perspective (and other experiences) directly inform one's political decisions. You have every right for that to be the case and to vote your conscience. For example, I would argue that the New Testament's statement of equality for all believers (which I quoted above) had an effect on some in the anti-slavery and women's suffrage movements in this country.

However, outside of a Christian theocracy "because the Bible says so" is not a convincing justification (even were there only one interpretation possible) for a law that governs Christians of other denominations, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists. The equal worth of human beings is arguable from a multiplicity of perspectives. People having the freedom to find their own way (which the protestant "priesthood of all believers" informs) and pursue their own happiness (and freedom of conscious, also a protestant value) appeals to more than the Bible alone.

If you believe that God's laws are not arbitrary and reflect deeper truths, then they should be arguable from a non-religious perspective. If that's not the case, then you shouldn't expect for others to be content when you impose those views as laws upon others, any more than you would be content having laws from another religion imposed upon you.

No one is stopping you from voicing your opinion or voting your (religiously informed) conscience. However, we here in the U.S. live in a pluralistic society and our government does not endorse any one denomination or religion (not even atheism). We tolerate religious differences, and ask for tolerance from our citizens in return.

 

[Beorn]

Why?

Because rights are fundamentally linked to values which are in no way secular so even if you use the secular measuring stick of societal impact. Determining what is a good or bad societal impact is a moral or value judgement... whether you view the secular data through the lens of utilitarianism, deontology, christianity, or law and economics.

Of course one's religious perspective (and other experiences) directly inform one's political decisions. You have every right for that to be the case and to vote your conscience.

That's all I ask.

However, outside of a Christian theocracy "because the Bible says so" is not a convincing justification (even were there only one interpretation possible) for a law that governs Christians of other denominations, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

No, I doubt it is convincing. But, I challenge the Idea that "because the bible says so" is somehow equal to theocracy. I support laws against murder first and foremost on the basis that that it is a societal sin condemned by God.

The equal worth of human beings is arguable from a multiplicity of perspectives. People having the freedom to find their own way (which the protestant "priesthood of all believers" informs) and pursue their own happiness (and freedom of conscious, also a protestant value) appeals to more than the Bible alone.

I think your concept of the priesthood of all believers is a bit misinformed, but I won't get into that.

Your argument that other faiths agree on certain tenants is a good policy argument. But, it does not completely delegitimize my views which are based on a more narrow perspective.

If you believe that God's laws are not arbitrary and reflect deeper truths, then they should be arguable from a non-religious perspective. If that's not the case, then you shouldn't expect for others to be content when you impose those views as laws upon others, any more than you would be content having laws from another religion imposed upon you.

I don't expect other people to be content when my views are imposed upon them regardless of whether they're on religious grounds. Nonetheless, If I can get a constitutional bill I support based on my view of the bible passed by congress and signed by the president... well that's that. It's not fundamentally unfair.

There are tons of laws imposed on me that I don't like... thousands likely.

However, we here in the U.S. live in a pluralistic society and our government does not endorse any one denomination or religion (not even atheism). We tolerate religious differences, and ask for tolerance from our citizens in return.

Religious tolerance is a separate issue from policy motivation.

Gay marriage is strictly an equal protection clause issue. The establishment clause does not come into play... I'm pretty sure you can read any court opinion on same-sex marriage and they're not going to bring up the establishment clause.

 

[cafe]

I guess for me, my duty as a Christian is to be a good citizen and in doing so, I have to look at the basic concept of what our laws are supposed to do -- the spirit of the laws, if you will. In the US, the essential theme is freedom and equailty -- people should be free to live as they want to up to the point that doing so will infringe upon the freedom of others and citizens in good standing (those not guilty of crimes against their fellow citizens, etc) should be equal under the law.

As a citizen, the only objections I can see to same sex unions are essentially religious in nature. Two men or women receiving marriage-like health insurance/tax status, if they live like a married couple, does not infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens in any significant way that I can see. If I felt there was some infringement upon the freedoms of others because of these unions -- infringement specific to this kind of union -- then it would be a different matter.

The idea that one group can have freedoms while not giving those same freedoms to others is repulsive to me as a citizen and as a Christian. I'll give an example of the way I look at it: as a Protestant believer, I don't have a problem of conscience with some types of birth control above and beyond, say, what a lot of Catholic believers might have a problem with. I believe God gave married couples sex for not just procreation, but as an outlet for their sexual cravings and (according to my understanding of scripture) they should not abstain from sex for reasons other than a mutually agreed upon (and brief) period of prayer and fasting. This is somewhat different from the way some Catholic believers see things, if I understand correctly.

My husband and I have four children and feel that our family is complete, so I have been sterilized. If I had not had the procedure done, with our record I'd probably have . . . at least eight kids by now. I don't want to have ten or more children (I have at least five more childbearing years ahead of me) and there is nothing in my belief system against limiting my family size by artificial means.

Now I don't believe a Catholic doctor, or hospital, or other medical staff ought to be forced to preform sterilizations, but I also don't believe that I should be prohibited from receiving that procedure if I want it. So how would I feel if I was not allowed to have that procedure based on religious beliefs that I do not share? I would probably feel nauseous because I'd be pregnant, but beyond that, I would feel pretty imposed upon and discriminated against. I would feel it was unjust.

Or what if a Muslim or Jewish group wanted to ban the consumption of pork or Hindus the consumption of meat for everyone in the country based on their religious beliefs alone?

To me, it's the same kind of thing to deny equal rights to homosexuals based on religious beliefs or even the status quo.

 

[Valiant]

The answer's in your question.

The point is that the goal of those pushing the issue is that it will be within every church, they arent content to live after their own fashion and let others live after their own, its a campaign to achieve universal acceptance, appreciation, support, endorsement, approval.

Often its as a substitute for the approval they couldnt receive at home or in their own communities and that's so fucking neurotic, its impossible to satisfy and ultimately will send people insane because no matter how much legislation, change etc. there is they'll always be left with the suspiscion that some place some where the thought of their sexual behaviour makes someone want barf because that same someone thinks its abnormal, unnatural, perverse.

This is part of the reason why I dont think this issue is anything like the half a dozen other minority-majority relationships or discrimination issues which its compared to, its nothing like the racial discrimination and black civil rights movements because they had a point at which they were prepared to say "OK, its done", at least some of their pundits where.

For many conscientious objectors to homosexuality, including religious, its a water mark, how far are people willing to go to try and create an artifical consensus and enforce a political correctness or closed mindedness (yeah, closed minded, why is it not to suppose that everyone is latently homosexual when there is such a great number of people who are not and never develop that way?).

Seconded. Great post.

 

[Brendan]

Because rights are fundamentally linked to values which are in no way secular

You just repeated yourself, so I'll ask again:

Why? Lay out for me how an atheist cannot logically believe in rights?

so even if you use the secular measuring stick of societal impact. Determining what is a good or bad societal impact is a moral or value judgement...

My belief in certain inalienable rights is not based in a view of good or bad. It's quid pro quo. I believe in my fellow man's right to life because I wish to be guaranteed that right in return. I believe in a right to individual pursuit of happiness because I'm on that same pursuit, and as such I know that each pursuit is as unique as the person who pursues.

So I, as a hypothetical atheist, believe that we should treat human beings as we wish to be treated, not because of scripture, but because we're all in this together. Belief in the absence of God, and therefore that this is all there is to it does not in any way make life easier, and does not inherently lead to a disregard for the sanctity of others. On the contrary, I would assume that it causes one to seek greater comfort and companionship from those around oneself, as there's nowhere else to turn.