[wiseOLDman]

OK, one more piece of hair-splitting. One needn't ACCEPT anything that they don't believe in. Acceptance implies agreement. One need only recognize the existence of a piece of legislation. There are numerous laws on the books that any one of us would not agree with, but we are required to recognize them.

[midori]

Originally posted by quankanne
desegregation, the abolition of slavery, allowing women to vote ... these things are positive things. But the jury of one is still out on the same-sex marriage issue because frankly, I can't see how something like that can work when there are so many things working against it, least of all the "moral absolutes" someone alluded to another post.

People didn't see them as "positives" when they were initiated -- you know that! There were PLENTY of forces against the abolition of slavery and, 100 years later, the civil rights movement.

What are these vague "many things working against" same-sex marriage, besides some people's objections to it? How is that different from those who thought it reasonable to deny women the right to vote? How is that different from those who thought mixing black and white children in schools would lead to disaster?

but if there's a legal ruling on the matter, then a bunch of judicial types are telling me that I do have to accept something I don't fully believe in ... saying, legally, I have to accept it. It's not like I'm passing up a serving of peas with my dinner, but that the choices are pea soup or some other soup that's got peas in it. I can pick them out, yes, but it's still soup made with legumes in it.

Sorry quankanne but you've lost me again. I'm staring at the pea soup trying to see your point, but all I see are peas... (heh heh)

divorce and the Church is a different matter, because in the eyes of the Catholic church, marriage is a sacramental union as well as a legal one.

how is same-sex marriage different? and is legalizing same-sex marriage in the secular world going to affect Catholic or other religious laws pertaining to same-sex marriage? No, it isn't.

Divorces are common among Catholics in this country, but until a church tribunal can prove that the union was not *sacramentally* valid, that person is restricted from receiving communion. He still can go to church. He can even remarry, but he's still kneeling in the pew when everyone else is going up to the altar, and his subsequent marriage is not recognized until the case of the first one is resolved (read: sacramentally annulled).

Right, and that is a problem for Catholics to solve, in whatever way seems right to them. Their condundrum is not the concern of the rest of the country, just as my ability to divorce and remarry numerous times in the Episcopal Church is not the business of Catholics (hooray for Henry VIII)!

A promise is a promise … what's the point of making vows that can be undone?

True. However, there has to be certain elements in place for a Catholic marriage to be valid -- no one's being forced against their will into the marriage, that both parties are cognizant of who this sacramental marriage entails, that both are mentally and emotionally capable of living up those vows. It entails a lot of "extra" stuff, and it takes a lot of work to prove that a previous union between two people wasn't valid in the eyes of the church.

Again, a problem for the Catholics to resolve as they see fit. But the point is that the tricky problem of divorce for Catholics doesn't mean that other Americans shouldn't be able to divorce and re-marry. Those of us who don't believe in Catholic notions of sacrament shouldn't be affected by it -- unless of course they're Catholic! (can you be Catholic and not believe in Catholic notions of sacrament?)

Here's another idea to throw into the mix, regarding marriage practices and religion and violation of civil rights: why did the Mormons have to give up bigamy?

And on that note folks, I'm bowing out, at least for the evening.

[moimeme]

I'm sure Catholics have their reasons for thinking that no meat on Fridays is a good thing to do.

Someone has already pointed out that this is no longer the case. As of almost 40 years ago.


Again, just to use Catholic practice as an example: divorce is not possible in the Catholic Church.

Again, untrue. There isn't divorce but there is annulment. Also, Catholics can get divorced in civil courts. What thay cannot do is remarry unless they have obtained an annulment.

[moimeme]

because it lessens the integrity of the rights of the people who are in opposition to something like same-sex marriage?

Oh, Quank!!!!!! No it doesn't. In no way does it lessen anybody's integrity!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your integrity derives from within you - it is not externally assigned!!!!!!

but if there's a legal ruling on the matter, then a bunch of judicial types are telling me that I do have to accept something I don't fully believe in ... saying, legally, I have to accept it.

Quank. You have yet to respond to the fact that racism is something that a LOT of people 'fully believe in' to this day and you seem to think the laws against racism are ok.

You may not have noticed, but what you are saying is this: "Laws for things I agree with are OK but laws for things I disagree with are against everybody's civil rights" Do you see this?

[quankanne]

(she replied drollishly, "I did preface my initial comments with a squawk, y'alll ....")

Your integrity derives from within you
yes, and therefore I feel battered as I perceive that MY right to hold a contrary opinion is shot down as non-acceptable by someone who just doesn't want to hear an opposing view.

all in all, I'm not squawking about same-sex marriages on the basis of religious beliefs, but because I just don't think that people understand that there might not be an immediate mass effect of a positive nature. Whether or not this accepted legally really isn't the main point, to me: it's the aftermath of it, of how people are going to see that overall, something like this really isn't going to change the minds of people who are dead-set against same-sex marriages, for whatever reasons. As when Midori points out that even with certain advances in society (desegregation, civil rights, women's rights), there's still a problem in the acceptance and perception of these issues. I honestly believe that the community that supports gay rights (like legalizing same-sex marriages) are going to still have problems in finding acceptance simply because it is a sex-based issue. In a lot of people's minds, you cannot help being born a certain race or gender, but a person has a lot of say about the lifestyles they embrace, especially if it pertains to sex ...

Quank. You have yet to respond to the fact that racism is something that a LOT of people 'fully believe in' to this day and you seem to think the laws against racism are ok

see statement above, the part about how people are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the law enforces, and that in a sense, the legal ground a group gains is
weakened by the reality of the full lack of support it has. Laws dictate one thing, beliefs and prejudices another. I'd hoped to point this out in all my ramblings!

What thay cannot do is remarry unless they have obtained an annulment

they cannot remarry in the Catholic Church unless the previous marriage has been annulled; only then is a Catholic sacramentally free to remarry. Tricky and strange, but all perfectly normal within the constraints of Catholic belief.

Those of us who don't believe in Catholic notions of sacrament shouldn't be affected by it -- unless of course they're Catholic!

or about to marry a Catholic, lol. My heathen husband is having a hard time understanding why it's so important for him to get his previous marriages annulled -- no one involved was Catholic, he's not Catholic nor planning to become one, so it shouldn't affect him, yet it does. Damned murky pea soup ...

why did the Mormons have to give up bigamy?

is this like asking why the chicken crossed the road?
I think it has something to do with this country only recognizing a "one man-one woman" marriage as the norm. which brings us back to the issue of same sex marriages ...

[Callisto]

Originally posted by quankanne

yes, and therefore I feel battered as I perceive that MY right to hold a contrary opinion is shot down as non-acceptable by someone who just doesn't want to hear an opposing view.

Nobody says you cannot have a different view, but to shoot down someones civil rights just because YOU have a different view is not respecting THEIR views. Maybe people had different views about a woman's right to vote and prohibition.

Whether or not this accepted legally really isn't the main point, to me: it's the aftermath of it, of how people are going to see that overall, something like this really isn't going to change the minds of people who are dead-set against same-sex marriages, for whatever reasons.

Some things just take time to get used to. Some people never do. But still, just because some people are dead-set against it, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And I don't think that homosexuals are really all that concerned with changing the minds of people. They just want to live their lives as everyone else. Sure things are going to be tough, but things are tough in EVERY relationship. So if Bobo next door doesn't accept it, who cares. Maybe I don't accept that Bobo is married to a woman half his age. It's really none of my business.

In a lot of people's minds, you cannot help being born a certain race or gender, but a person has a lot of say about the lifestyles they embrace, especially if it pertains to sex ...

And that be true to you, but I don't think that people can help the fact that they like someone of the same gender. I cannot help the fact that I like men. If someone told me that this is not acceptable and I must like women, I don't think I could. Could you? If this was the societal norm?

Laws dictate one thing, beliefs and prejudices another.

If this was true the KKK would no longer exist, Mathew Sheppard would still be alive,and everyone would be pro-abortion.

[moimeme]

how people are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the law enforces, and that in a sense,

So? Quank, if you take that to its logical extension, there would never be any policies aimed at social justice. You are suggesting that society kowtow to the lowest, most prejudiced people since they won't change anyway!!!!!!!!!

Let's see. That means no woman would vote, children could be beaten with equanimity, etc.

The argument that a law should not be made because not everybody will agree with it is not even slightly logical.
This is not the measure of justice; this is the measure of tyranny of the minority.

[wiseOLDman]

I think it's time to take this to a logical conclusion.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by moimeme
Nobody's GOD ever said any such thing. Rather, people claiming to speak for God have said this. And people claiming to speak of the Bible have bastardized that same holy book to put forward their policies of hate while ignoring their own hypocricy.

I will again insist that anybody who says he or she lives by 'every word of the Bible' turn to Leviticus - the same chapter in which homosexuality is 'condemned' - and live by EVERY WORD IN THAT CHAPTER. Which means, while they condemn homosexuals they must also stone their disobedient children to death and stone adulterers to death. You either walk your talk or you are a hypocrite. Period.

I wasn't just talking about the various Christians faiths- but all organized religions! There are religions that support all sorts of things that we find strange, or abhorrent, or silly, etc. Do you really believe that the 9/11 terrorists went to heaven and were presented with a bunch (forget how many) of virgins in appreciation of their efforts!

If a person, or 'church', believes that their God-of-choice has claimed a certain act a sin, then it is a sin to that person/church because of their belief. The person/church will act accordingly and a same-sex couple living in that area will feel it. Whether the guy at the hardware store refuses to help them, or the kid that carries the grocery bags to the car always disappears when a gay spouse shows up - to burning crosses on the front lawn, I still hold to my opinion that It doesn't matter what the government does - if a religion does not sanctify a marriage no piece of government paper is going to change that.

[moimeme]

Oh heck, WiseOld, I think the last thread on this subject ran over 100 responses

[moimeme]

I wasn't just talking about the various Christians faiths- but all organized religions! There are religions that support all sorts of things that we find strange, or abhorrent, or silly, etc. Do you really believe that the 9/11 terrorists went to heaven and were presented with a bunch (forget how many) of virgins in appreciation of their efforts!

Yes, but that's the same thing. Islam doesn't say that. Some of their leaders made that one up. That's all I'm saying. The scriptures (ours, theirs, everyone's) say one thing, people who lead those churches interpret that thing in a lot of different ways, including to serve their own agendas.

It doesn't matter what the government does - if a religion does not sanctify a marriage no piece of government paper is going to change that.

That leaves out every atheist! What of all the millions of JP marriages - not to mention the Vegas ones? Golly! I mean, if that is your belief, that is fine, but surely people who don't share that belief ought not be denied the ability to marry because of it?

[quankanne]

You are suggesting that society kowtow to the lowest, most prejudiced people

society needs to be represented by ALL, not just the extreme left, the extreme right or various and sundry blips in between. If we're trying to be fair, then we must take into consideration the folks who are against the issue of same-sex marriage, as well, for theirs is a real and valid voice. (BTW, not all of us who don't agree that this kind of legal ruling is going to make a real difference in a real society are disagreeing because we are influenced by our moral/religious/ethical belief system ...)

Me, myself and I just don't see how allowing same-sex marriage is going to make a real difference, save for a very small segment of a very small minority of the population, i.e., folks who happen to be of the same sex and want to seal their relationship with the blessing of the law. Yes, it's a win for letting the Constitution be a living breathing thing that ensures all citizens of the US have their rights protected and represented, but speaking realistically, what's it going to change for the average Joe who could give a rat's rump about someone's lifestyle? Does that make it a real win when you consider the apathy factor?

On the other hand, what about the loonies who will use this as an excuse to call for open season on the folks who are open about living a homosexual lifestyle? We read about people who gun down abortion providers (or even people who work at abortion clinics) because they respect life so much that they want to protect unborn babies, so what happens when someone with a very rigid view of sexuality snaps and starts gunning down gays? How does that not make this legal gain a Pyrrhic victory? Does anyone really want to be a martyr by that method, getting killed because some kook didn't like gays? Look at Nicolaus West, a local boy taken out to a gravel pit by a trio of men because they knew he was gay? I doubt that he ever wanted to be the poster boy by these means ...

Arguing the points of issues of women's rights/equality, abortion or racism really doesn't do anything to aid the argument for gay rights, because there are people who see sexuality as a lifestyle choice, never the matter if a person is genetically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex. I've said it before: to them, there's no argument for gay rights when someone "choses" to live a lifestyle that is contrary to what they believe.

Sex is taboo, but a sacred cow as well.

[quankanne]

one last word, and I'll shut up:

Let's see. That means no woman would vote, children could be beaten with equanimity, etc.

obviously, you've never had the pleasure of meeting my one sister. She SHOULD have been beaten with equanimity

[moimeme]

Yes, it's a win for letting the Constitution be a living breathing thing that ensures all citizens of the US have their rights protected and represented

Well, gosh! That sounds pretty good to me!!!

Quank, your contention seems to still be 'if people are still going to keep on being prejudiced and horrible, then don't make any laws against prejudice because it won't change them'.

I'm just not getting why this should matter. That there will always people who cling firmly to hatred and bigotry is no reason not to enact laws against them. The point of the laws is not to change bigots into tolerant people, it is to protect people from bigotry and to punish bigotry when it is visited upon others. Yes, there are zealots who shoot abortionists, but that doesn't mean those zealots won't end up in jail for it.

It's the same as saying there's no point in making theft a crime because there will always be theft!!!!! Of course you can't change minds and hearts - but you can impose penalties on people who would deny those rights you mentioned in your excellent quote above.

[Callisto]

People don't need excuses to gun down others. Some of the worlds greatest hypocrites have been discovered after a violent showdown. Pro-lifers who kill. Homophobes who turn out to be gay after a killing spree.

If people are going to hate I doubt this law will do little to prevent or provoke it. But still everyone has a right to wedded bliss.