obama endorses same-sex marriage

[Angua]

Which raises a question for those who are in favor of homosexual marriage per se marriage: are you contending that, not legally or scientifically, but spiritually, that a homosexual partnership is equal to a heterosexual one?

I don't see why not. I don't really believe in soul mates, or whatever, but I think that there is no reason that the love I feel for my SO is somehow any different than what any other couple similarly in love [ie same level of commitment and compatibility] feels for each other, be they of the same sex or not.

[omgryebread]

. Also also, fun fact, but there's a lot of traditions with marriage that we don't support anymore -- dowries, polygamy, pre-arranged marriages, the woman being subject to the whims of her husband, women losing the rights to inheritance for her original family.

To be fair, a lot of the "traditional marriage" zombies would probably like to bring some of those things back.


Also, another footnote to the map, it's the same with Maryland. Referendum will probably be on the ballot in November. Polling numbers look hopeful, and they seem to be moving in the right direction.


I'm almost positive Obama has supported gay marriage for a while now. I don't have a problem with him not endorsing it. It would have gotten the bill passed in Maryland sooner, but they were always going to delay implimentation until a referendum this November anyway, and they brought in some other big guns like Cheney and Clinton from national politics to lobby and that worked fine.

But the point is, it would've taken bigger political balls to say it beforehand. IMO, it would've also been beneficial to him in his campaign to have been able to say he endorsed the campaign against the amendment. I want him to take a firm stand on issues when they're most relevant, and thus be able to explain to the electorate exactly why the elephants have gone bonkers in real time rather than after the fact.

Clarification: Don't think I'm complaining about the endorsement, it fills me with joy and it's about damned time. I'm sick of seeing my fellow Americans have their rights and freedoms trampled on, "'cause Jesus," as if that's a valid base upon which to politick.

He did come out against the NC amendment, actually.

If Obama thought coming out in support of gay marriage earlier would have hurt his chances at reelection, then supporting it wouldn't have been ballsy, it would have been stupid. No matter how lukewarm his support, losing the election means we get President Romney, who's certainly not going to be a good guy to have around.

Legally it's supposed to be secular. Culturally it can act however it likes. That's why I'm in the civil union camp politically, but socially I think that one is holy matrimony and the other is a contract for cohabitation and companionship.

Which raises a question for those who are in favor of homosexual marriage per se marriage: are you contending that, not legally or scientifically, but spiritually, that a homosexual partnership is equal to a heterosexual one?

You realize how bizarre this argument is right?

If government isn't spiritual, and marriage is, the government shouldn't marry anyone. And yes, I do believe that spiritually (in so far as that's a valid word for me), my loving and dedicated relationship is equal to any heterosexual relationship. A great deal more spiritual than some. (And if you want someone who's actually religious, then my girlfriend agrees, and I don't think she's missed church since elementary school. Plenty of faith leaders agree as well. Or plenty of Christians. Like Barack Obama or Joe Biden.)

[Ghostbear]

Footnote to the map: marriage is technically in legal limbo in WA until we the voters approve it in November. Pretty sure the reactionaries have the signatures they need for a referendum. But not the votes to kill it, any more than they did civil unions.

As for Obama's statement now, I can't bring myself to give a fuck. Everyone's missing the other half - he still feels it's an issue for the states. If the Supreme Court had applied that reasoning to a particular 1967 court case, Obama's parents' marriage would still be invalid in a number of states.

Yeah, the key to that map included that Washington, Maryland, and California were all special cases for the moment. I was just too lazy to copy all of that into my post. Also, as Griffin pointed out, with the removal of the federal bans on recognition, it'd probably become de facto legal everywhere if you could afford to travel to a state where it was legal.

Isn't the whole of the USA supposed to be a secular enclave? Doesn't the US constitution have a line saying "Government shall make no law respecting an established religion". Sounds pretty secular to me.

In theory, yes. There's also some very definite text that spells out quite clearly that we are not a christian nation. It's also known that Jefferson and Madison (Madison being the one who wrote the amendment himself) intended that clause to mean separation of church and state. Funny how originalists tend not to pay much heed to either of those.

Well, for secular enclaves I'm just talking about places like university faculties, the editorial boards of major newspapers, and. . . here. Are you disputing that there are such things as gatherings of people who are generally disinclined to live their lives according to sectarian precepts and that the people who do gather such tend to not favor a rigid definition of marriage?

You said "virtually no support", I'm disputing that there are any large and numerous enough, that still meet the "virtually no support" requirement, to warrant being mentioned in a discussion of a national topic.

Legally it's supposed to be secular. Culturally it can act however it likes. That's why I'm in the civil union camp politically, but socially I think that one is holy matrimony and the other is a contract for cohabitation and companionship.

Which raises a question for those who are in favor of homosexual marriage per se marriage: are you contending that, not legally or scientifically, but spiritually, that a homosexual partnership is equal to a heterosexual one?

You did read the part where I pointed out that western european marriage predates the influence of abrahamic religions with them, right? Yes, many marriages are religious, but there's nothing about marriage that is inherently religious. It just so happens that a large body of religious people decided to co-opt the term marriage for one of their own ceremonies. Nothing more. That doesn't mean they've gained the right to exclusive use of it such that others can be denied it.

[IcedT]

Presumably because gay people getting married in New York doesn't hurt religious zealots in North Carolina one bit, but religious zealots amending their constitution against gay marriage hurts gays in North Carolina badly and represents the extension of a negative trend that affects all LGBT people?

This is what I'm talking about. You can't even frame the debate in a way other than one in which your side is presumed correct.

I'm "capable" of framing the debate differently, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest to do so. On one side we have a group seeking equality for themselves with no intention of imposing anything on others. On the other side we have a group that is maliciously seeking to deprive those people of equality. Those two aren't equivalent under any ethical system I'm aware of.

[Dark567]

On one side we have a group seeking equality for themselves with no intention of imposing anything on others. On the other side we have a group that is maliciously seeking to deprive those people of equality. Those two aren't equivalent under any ethical system I'm aware of.

You ever hear of Divine Command Theory?

[buddy431]

Its also believed it might cause legal trouble with other semi-legal recognitions of quasi-legal couple status that don't explicitly require marriage, such as visitation rights in hospitals and whatnot. That's all a crap shoot at this point though, depends on the extent to which the authorities want to target the non-gay unmarried, who they also tend to dislike.

Also, is it just me or do the first two sections of that amendment seem... completely in opposition?
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." - Meaning other contracts to the same end are invalid.
"This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party." - Uh, yeah, it does! It prevents me, a private party, from entering into a contract with that person over there, another private party! That is pretty explicitly the exact goal of the first sentence! I guess... I guess its saying you're free to get married, but the state isn't allowed to acknowledge it?

Now I'm actually a bit confused.

Yes, the government gives many benefits to people who are married - you can file joint tax returns, can't be compelled to testify against your spouse, etc. Of course anyone can enter into a private contract, but marriage (or government recognized civil unions) isn't (just) a private contract.

There was a couple of articles to the effect that no one really knows how far the courts are going to interpret this, that it's going to take several years to play out. Several local governments, for example, give some benefits to couples who live together, including same-sex couples. They've mostly indicated that they'll continue to offer them, though they'll likely get sued. In Michigan judges ruled that their amendment did apply to such benefits.

Some opponents have warned that the amendment might make it harder to prosecute domestic abusers in some cases. In Ohio, it was eventually decided that their amendment didn't affect such laws.

We don't really know what exactly this amendment prevents, which, in my mind, may be a sign that you didn't think out this amendment too carefully.

[Angua]

Presumably because gay people getting married in New York doesn't hurt religious zealots in North Carolina one bit, but religious zealots amending their constitution against gay marriage hurts gays in North Carolina badly and represents the extension of a negative trend that affects all LGBT people?

This is what I'm talking about. You can't even frame the debate in a way other than one in which your side is presumed correct.

I'm "capable" of framing the debate differently, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest to do so. On one side we have a group seeking equality for themselves with no intention of imposing anything on others. On the other side we have a group that is maliciously seeking to deprive those people of equality. Those two aren't equivalent under any ethical system I'm aware of.

You missed the bit about how the gay people are trying to destroy true marriage by.... taking themselves out of the heterosexual dating pool earlier on, so more likely to realise they're gay (or come to accept it) before they've married a partner of the other sex? No, that can't be right..... Oh right, it's the children of these people (because once they're married, they'll be able to adopt!) who will suffer from... having 2 married parents.. Oh, maybe it's the fact that children might grow up to think that being homosexual is ok, and so catch it! It must be that, because after all, you don't get gay people in countries where the penalty for homosexuality can be death.... (oh wait).

[IcedT]

On one side we have a group seeking equality for themselves with no intention of imposing anything on others. On the other side we have a group that is maliciously seeking to deprive those people of equality. Those two aren't equivalent under any ethical system I'm aware of.

You ever hear of Divine Command Theory?

Ok, well I guess that makes one ethical system. But until we can get everybody to agree on which God is in charge that hardly seems like a basis for law.

[Steroid]

You realize how bizarre this argument is right?

If government isn't spiritual, and marriage is, the government shouldn't marry anyone.

But there is such a thing as life outside of government. (that may be a point of contention around here, though) Two people getting together can have a spiritual quality whether or not government is endorsing it. Obama's stance matters because the president is more than just the head of the government, he is the figurehead of the country and the bellwether of the culture.

And yes, I do believe that spiritually (in so far as that's a valid word for me), my loving and dedicated relationship is equal to any heterosexual relationship. A great deal more spiritual than some. (And if you want someone who's actually religious, then my girlfriend agrees, and I don't think she's missed church since elementary school. Plenty of faith leaders agree as well. Or plenty of Christians. Like Barack Obama or Joe Biden.)

Sure, but some don't. Some are saying that spirituality is not a measure of closeness, love, or hard work, but simply how in-line with god's plan you are. And while that's not a proper legal argument, it is a perfectly cromulent spiritual argument, because spirituality is far more inductive, value-based, and catch-as-catch-can than politics or legality. What I don't want to see happen is the legalistics of the situation crowd out the spiritual values of those people.

You said "virtually no support", I'm disputing that there are any large and numerous enough, that still meet the "virtually no support" requirement, to warrant being mentioned in a discussion of a national topic.

Yes, and I said that in response to a question about why there was no outrage over the NC law. I would expect such outrage only if the groups that would normally be outraged were large and influential enough to warrant mention.

In other words, it's Diadem, not I, who was assuming that there should be large groups with virtually no opposition to gay marriage.

You did read the part where I pointed out that western european marriage predates the influence of abrahamic religions with them, right? Yes, many marriages are religious, but there's nothing about marriage that is inherently religious. It just so happens that a large body of religious people decided to co-opt the term marriage for one of their own ceremonies. Nothing more. That doesn't mean they've gained the right to exclusive use of it such that others can be denied it.

Then can you give me an example of something that *is* inherently religious that the large body of religious people do have the exclusive right to declare theirs and can deny to homosexuals if they see fit? Because it seems to me that you're saying that inherent religiosity is a null set, if marriage is not part of it. Or can we, as I did before, draw a distinction between holy matrimony and mere contractual agreement?

I'm "capable" of framing the debate differently, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest to do so. On one side we have a group seeking equality for themselves with no intention of imposing anything on others. On the other side we have a group that is maliciously seeking to deprive those people of equality. Those two aren't equivalent under any ethical system I'm aware of.

No, they have no intention of imposing anything *that you (or they) see as having value* on others. To a religious person, the existence and prosperity of the homosexual lifestyle may impose a spiritual wrong on them. Does that warrant a legal remedy? Not at all. Does it warrant a social remedy? In my opinion it does.

[Angua]

No, they have no intention of imposing anything *that you (or they) see as having value* on others. To a religious racist person, the existence and prosperity of the homosexualmixed marriage lifestyle may impose a spiritual terrilbe wrong on them, due to contamination of the blood lines. Does that warrant a legal remedy? Not at all. Does it warrant a social remedy? In my opinion it does.

[darkone238]

If government is going to be in the business of granting marriage, they cannot reasonably deny a group of people that right. If only a church is going to grant marriage, then they can reasonably exclude whoever the hell they want, so long as they are not granting legal rights and responsibilities with it. This leaves a few options, two of which are the following:
1) Deny nobody the right to a legal marriage based on sexual orientation
2) No longer grant legal marriages and have everyone, straight or otherwise, enter into civil unions/domestic partnerships/whatever else you want to call it and give the word marriage to the churches so they can go be bigots if they'd like.

#1 is what people are fighting for, #2 is never going to happen because people don't understand that there is a difference between church and state and that a holy marriage is not the same thing as a legal marriage, though they are often received at the same time.

[Ghostbear]

Yes, and I said that in response to a question about why there was no outrage over the NC law. I would expect such outrage only if the groups that would normally be outraged were large and influential enough to warrant mention.

In other words, it's Diadem, not I, who was assuming that there should be large groups with virtually no opposition to gay marriage.

Then I think you just didn't read the right places for your outrage for NY's law. There wasn't any here (that I know of) because most people here supported it. That's not the same as there not being outrage over it. Archbisop Dolan reads to me like he was quite unhappy with it. I bet if I was willing to drudge myself through Fox News I could find plenty of news reports putting a negative slant on it as well. Don't fall for the "elite liberal media" bullshit.

Then can you give me an example of something that *is* inherently religious that the large body of religious people do have the exclusive right to declare theirs and can deny to homosexuals if they see fit? Because it seems to me that you're saying that inherent religiosity is a null set, if marriage is not part of it. Or can we, as I did before, draw a distinction between holy matrimony and mere contractual agreement?

How about church practices? Anything that is kept wholly and solely within the church? A church doesn't have to marry two gay people. Nor does it have to make one a saint. Or appoint one as pope. Or...

You very clearly missed my point though. Marriage is not something that is inherently abrahamic-religious or general-religious, both in a manner of tradition (both the Greek's and Roman's both had marriages before they had any real interaction with abrahamic cultures -- definitely before cultural influence) and in the manner of fact (between all western cultures, there are probably several hundred million marriages without any involvement of religion). Just because you guys decided to call your ceremony "marriage" doesn't make marriage yours. You can deny your version of marriage, your specific ceremony, to others, sure, knock yourselves out. The word itself is not yours, however, and you can not impose your will on everyone else who wishes to use that word. you are not being wronged when two people of the same sex get married instead of getting civilly joined, because they are performing their own ceremony, with their own opinions, with their own beliefs or lack thereof. It. is. not. your. word. Christianity does not have a monopoly on the idea of marriage. Marriage is not a religious ceremony, to get a religious ceremony, you need christian marriage. And no one is pushing for legalized homosexual christian marriage. We're pushing for legalized homosexual marriage. Keep your ceremony, no one wants to take it from you. But don't you dare try claim ownership over the idea, over the word itself.

Are you as opposed a man and a woman non-religiously married as you are to two women or two men being non-religiously married?

EDIT:
More relating to the news itself and not the inevitable debate that arises from it. But this article says that Obama was planning to reveal his support for it before the election anyway -- he had just hoped to do so at the democratic national convention in September. Biden opening his mouth forced him to act sooner though.

[IcedT]

No, they have no intention of imposing anything *that you (or they) see as having value* on others. To a religious person, the existence and prosperity of the homosexual lifestyle may impose a spiritual wrong on them. Does that warrant a legal remedy? Not at all. Does it warrant a social remedy? In my opinion it does.

I don't see your point. The problem isn't that people think gay marriage is wrong, it's that they're going to great lengths to keep it illegal. There's a million things that are "spiritual wrongs" to one person or another and we're not banning those, otherwise it'd be a crime to be unbaptized.

[Not A Raptor]

If government is going to be in the business of granting marriage, they cannot reasonably deny a group of people that right. If only a church is going to grant marriage, then they can reasonably exclude whoever the hell they want, so long as they are not granting legal rights and responsibilities with it. This leaves a few options, two of which are the following:
1) Deny nobody the right to a legal marriage based on sexual orientation
2) No longer grant legal marriages and have everyone, straight or otherwise, enter into civil unions/domestic partnerships/whatever else you want to call it and give the word marriage to the churches so they can go be bigots if they'd like.

#1 is what people are fighting for, #2 is never going to happen because people don't understand that there is a difference between church and state and that a holy marriage is not the same thing as a legal marriage, though they are often received at the same time.

Also, #2 would simply piss everybody off for irrational reasons. As it turns out, people really care about a word. (Anecdote: When the bigots put it up to a vote in Maine, I tried to budge my father on the issue. Long story short, I brought up the concurrent vote in Washington that allowed everything but the word "marriage", and got him to say he was fine with that, but not fine with the application of the word "marriage". When I pointed out how irrational that seemed, I got a bit of yelling about how "they'll never be equal". Confirmed for him being one of the people who'll never be convinced... and all on account of a word.)

[darkone238]

If government is going to be in the business of granting marriage, they cannot reasonably deny a group of people that right. If only a church is going to grant marriage, then they can reasonably exclude whoever the hell they want, so long as they are not granting legal rights and responsibilities with it. This leaves a few options, two of which are the following:
1) Deny nobody the right to a legal marriage based on sexual orientation
2) No longer grant legal marriages and have everyone, straight or otherwise, enter into civil unions/domestic partnerships/whatever else you want to call it and give the word marriage to the churches so they can go be bigots if they'd like.

#1 is what people are fighting for, #2 is never going to happen because people don't understand that there is a difference between church and state and that a holy marriage is not the same thing as a legal marriage, though they are often received at the same time.

Also, #2 would simply piss everybody off for irrational reasons. As it turns out, people really care about a word. (Anecdote: When the bigots put it up to a vote in Maine, I tried to budge my father on the issue. Long story short, I brought up the concurrent vote in Washington that allowed everything but the word "marriage", and got him to say he was fine with that, but not fine with the application of the word "marriage". When I pointed out how irrational that seemed, I got a bit of yelling about how "they'll never be equal". Confirmed for him being one of the people who'll never be convinced... and all on account of a word.)

Yes, I forgot to mention that too. I suppose I can understand (though disagree with) the irrational attachment to words.

[Steroid]

Then I think you just didn't read the right places for your outrage for NY's law. There wasn't any here (that I know of) because most people here supported it. That's not the same as there not being outrage over it. Archbisop Dolan reads to me like he was quite unhappy with it. I bet if I was willing to drudge myself through Fox News I could find plenty of news reports putting a negative slant on it as well. Don't fall for the "elite liberal media" bullshit.

And I can find stories on MSNBC that would slant the other way about the North Carolina laws, not to mention blogs and LBGT groups. There's advocacy on both sides of an issue, that's not news.

How about church practices? Anything that is kept wholly and solely within the church? A church doesn't have to marry two gay people. Nor does it have to make one a saint. Or appoint one as pope. Or...

So you agree that it's a perfectly legitimate spiritual opinion that a homosexual cannot be a saint? Well, that's a start.

But those aren't in regular practice. If canonization were something that happened daily and churches were giving out little "Saint" badges to be worn around town and people respected those who had them, but refused to give them to homosexuals, I think we would either see homosexuals fighting the churches for inclusion (again, purely in the social/cultural arena, not politically) or see the general culture further marginalize the churches' stature in the community.

And that's what I'm against. On the whole I think the community of religious spirituality has been a superior force in the world when compared to the community of homosexual values.

You very clearly missed my point though. Marriage is not something that is inherently abrahamic-religious or general-religious, both in a manner of tradition (both the Greek's and Roman's both had marriages before they had any real interaction with abrahamic cultures -- definitely before cultural influence) and in the manner of fact (between all western cultures, there are probably several hundred million marriages without any involvement of religion). Just because you guys decided to call your ceremony "marriage" doesn't make marriage yours. You can deny your version of marriage, your specific ceremony, to others, sure, knock yourselves out. The word itself is not yours, however, and you can not impose your will on everyone else who wishes to use that word. you are not being wronged when two people of the same sex get married instead of getting civilly joined, because they are performing their own ceremony, with their own opinions, with their own beliefs or lack thereof. It. is. not. your. word. Christianity does not have a monopoly on the idea of marriage. Marriage is not a religious ceremony, to get a religious ceremony, you need christian marriage. And no one is pushing for legalized homosexual christian marriage. We're pushing for legalized homosexual marriage. Keep your ceremony, no one wants to take it from you. But don't you dare try claim ownership over the idea, over the word itself.

If a Christian is not wronged when a homosexual inclusively uses the word marriage to describe his partnership, then how is the homosexual wronged when the Christian exclusively uses the word to describe his? Are you saying there's an inherent superiority to inclusion over exclusion? If so, why?

Are you as opposed a man and a woman non-religiously married as you are to two women or two men being non-religiously married?

To whatever degree there is non-religion in marriage, no. I just think that degree is less than you think.

I'm also a little suspicious that your standard happens to coincide perfectly with what is valuable to the homosexual. You're not arguing that homosexuals should have the right to christian marriages or certain marriage ceremonies or the love and respect of the christian right, but for the most part homosexuals don't want that. Is there nothing that homosexuals desperately want that the christian right can rightfully deny them?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

So you agree that it's a perfectly legitimate spiritual opinion that a homosexual cannot be a saint? Well, that's a start.

What do you mean by "legitimate spiritual opinion"? For example, part of what it means to canonize someone is to say that they are in heaven. Does someone who thinks that heaven does not exist regard that opinion as illegitimate? If not, what do you have to add to that view to get the view that canonization is illegitimate?

On the whole I think the community of religious spirituality has been a superior force in the world when compared to the community of homosexual values.

You're comparing the wrong things. The choice is not: community of religious spirituality XOR community of homosexual values. The choice is the choice is: marriage equality XOR the portions of religious spirituality that entail/depend on rejecting marriage equality. Choosing the former means you lose certain beliefs about marriage, in some cases certain beliefs about the infallibility of religious traditions (e.g. Catholic Magisterium). There is a whole lot more to religious spirituality than that.

[Not A Raptor]

And that's what I'm against. On the whole I think the community of religious spirituality has been a superior force in the world when compared to the community of homosexual values.

Pardon, but what "homosexual values" are you talking about, and are they even separate from the other values save on the issues surrounding sexuality?

That said, religious spirituality has been a great force for good in the world. Religious hierarchy, on the other hand... will leave your head spinning before you can say "Galileo Galilei". Also, what TGB said.

[Steroid]

And that's what I'm against. On the whole I think the community of religious spirituality has been a superior force in the world when compared to the community of homosexual values.

Pardon, but what "homosexual values" are you talking about, and are they even separate from the other values save on the issues surrounding sexuality?

I'm just talking about the sexual issues--on what other issues is there continuity? But it's the same with religious people. They have more in common regarding spirituality than other aspects of life.

So you agree that it's a perfectly legitimate spiritual opinion that a homosexual cannot be a saint? Well, that's a start.

What do you mean by "legitimate spiritual opinion"? For example, part of what it means to canonize someone is to say that they are in heaven. Does someone who thinks that heaven does not exist regard that opinion as illegitimate? If not, what do you have to add to that view to get the view that canonization is illegitimate?

But that's orthogonal to the opinion. You can say that "If heaven exists, gays are not welcome," is a conditional that could be true regardless of what you think of the premise.

On the whole I think the community of religious spirituality has been a superior force in the world when compared to the community of homosexual values.

You're comparing the wrong things. The choice is not: community of religious spirituality XOR community of homosexual values. The choice is the choice is: marriage equality XOR the portions of religious spirituality that entail/depend on rejecting marriage equality. Choosing the former means you lose certain beliefs about marriage, in some cases certain beliefs about the infallibility of religious traditions (e.g. Catholic Magisterium). There is a whole lot more to religious spirituality than that.[/quote]
I don't think they're as separable as you're making them out to be.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

But that's orthogonal to the opinion. You can say that "If heaven exists, gays are not welcome," is a conditional that could be true regardless of what you think of the premise.

Many people think it's false, though: many people think that heaven exists and gays are welcome (I mean, fuck, even most of the groups trotted out as examples of traditionalism think that you can be a "non-practicing homosexual" and go to heaven). Are you saying that the Episcopal Church implicitly regards the Catholic Church's opinion as illegitimate?

I don't think they're as separable as you're making them out to be.

What do you make of Gene Robinson?

[Dauric]

On the whole I think the community of religious spirituality has been a superior force in the world when compared to the community of homosexual values.

You're comparing the wrong things. The choice is not: community of religious spirituality XOR community of homosexual values. The choice is the choice is: marriage equality XOR the portions of religious spirituality that entail/depend on rejecting marriage equality. Choosing the former means you lose certain beliefs about marriage, in some cases certain beliefs about the infallibility of religious traditions (e.g. Catholic Magisterium). There is a whole lot more to religious spirituality than that.

I don't think they're as separable as you're making them out to be.

Could you.. I dunno.. Actually make a case for that instead of saying "Nuh,-uh!"

Being a board largely made up of people that value a well thought out argument, and who by-in-large consider automatic gainsay of the other person's position to be trolling, you might want to add a bit more detail there.

[Nordic Einar]

I'm also a little suspicious that your standard happens to coincide perfectly with what is valuable to the homosexual. You're not arguing that homosexuals should have the right to christian marriages or certain marriage ceremonies or the love and respect of the christian right, but for the most part homosexuals don't want that. Is there nothing that homosexuals desperately want that the christian right can rightfully deny them?

I don't know, God? Heaven? Not being condemned to hell for all eternity? Incidentally, being Christian and being Gay are not exclusive in the least, gay people are often incredibly religious and incredibly spiritual and many, many gays have suffered significantly because of their conflicting sexuality and beliefs.

Also, if you really think gays haven't contributed to the world in a significant way you need to sit down with a historian who doesn't write out queers. We're more prevalent than you think. You might even be surprised at how much, uh, christian doctrine has been influenced by historical church figures who also were probably gay.

[Not A Raptor]

I'm just talking about the sexual issues--on what other issues is there continuity? But it's the same with religious people. They have more in common regarding spirituality than other aspects of life.

But that's orthogonal to the opinion. You can say that "If heaven exists, gays are not welcome," is a conditional that could be true regardless of what you think of the premise.

I don't think they're as separable as you're making them out to be.

1. So you're setting up a choice between homosexuality and all of spirituality, then? Because, let's be fair, spirituality is rather diverse:

Christian supporters of same-sex marriage have stated that marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage by providing legal protection for children of gay and lesbian parents, and view their support as a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons.[202][203][204] Supporters claim that the word "homosexual", as found in modern versions of the Bible, is an inaccurate translation of the original texts.[205][206] Neither Vine's Expository Dictionary nor Strong's Concordance (two significant bible reference works) contain the word "homosexual," and there is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples.[207] Some churches, like the Metropolitan Community Church, believe that the biblical texts used to condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship, and lack any relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships.[208] In 2005, the United Church of Christ (UCC) voted to support full legal and religious marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, making it the first mainline Christian denomination in the United States to do so.[209] The United Church of Canada states that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God".[210] Unitarian Universalism, a liberal faith tradition, supports same-sex marriage,[211] and has taken an active role advocating for LGBT rights.[212] The Yearly Meeting of Quakers in the United Kingdom decided to offer same-sex marriages, though national law permits only civil partnerships.[213] In addition to the churches already including gays and lesbians in their marriage tradition, others including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Church of Scotland are discussing the issue among their members.[209]

2. If one takes the premise "heaven exists" to be false, then anything could follow and the conditional will be true. This is because a conditional is only false when the premise is true and the conclusion is false. Ex: False premise ==> Dragons exist! or False premise ==> Gravity doesn't exist! When you see it like that, it's fairly easy to conclude that a false premise leads to an irrelevant conclusion. TGB considers the premise in your conditional to be false and, as a result, considers your argument to be irrelevant on that basis... I think. Could you confirm that for me, TGB?

3. See #1.

[Steroid]

Many people think it's false, though: many people think that heaven exists and gays are welcome (I mean, fuck, even most of the groups trotted out as examples of traditionalism think that you can be a "non-practicing homosexual" and go to heaven). Are you saying that the Episcopal Church implicitly regards the Catholic Church's opinion as illegitimate?

No, I'm saying that even though they differ in what's true, they're far more likely to see the other church's opinion as understandable and legitimate than would someone who argued solely from a non-spiritual perspective.

I don't think they're as separable as you're making them out to be.

What do you make of Gene Robinson?

Again, the existence of homosexuality-tolerant spirituality does not gainsay the legitimacy of homosexuality-intolerant spirituality. I'm not saying that the former doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, or is self-contradictory. I am saying that the latter does exist, should exist, and is self-consistent.

I'm also a little suspicious that your standard happens to coincide perfectly with what is valuable to the homosexual. You're not arguing that homosexuals should have the right to christian marriages or certain marriage ceremonies or the love and respect of the christian right, but for the most part homosexuals don't want that. Is there nothing that homosexuals desperately want that the christian right can rightfully deny them?

I don't know, God? Heaven? Not being condemned to hell for all eternity? Incidentally, being Christian and being Gay are not exclusive in the least, gay people are often incredibly religious and incredibly spiritual and many, many gays have suffered significantly because of their conflicting sexuality and beliefs.

And that is, from the perspective of the christian who is against homosexuality (regardless of his own sexuality), a good thing, but that they have decreasing influence on gays who are not Christian is not a good trend from their perspective.

[Not A Raptor]

Many people think it's false, though: many people think that heaven exists and gays are welcome (I mean, fuck, even most of the groups trotted out as examples of traditionalism think that you can be a "non-practicing homosexual" and go to heaven). Are you saying that the Episcopal Church implicitly regards the Catholic Church's opinion as illegitimate?

Ah, my request of TGB is unnecessary. Arguing from neutrality as to the truth value of the existence of heaven. In that case, it's the person in TGB's hypothetical that would consider the conclusion to be irrelevant.

No, I'm saying that even though they differ in what's true, they're far more likely to see the other church's opinion as understandable and legitimate than would someone who argued solely from a non-spiritual perspective.

Again, the existence of homosexuality-tolerant spirituality does not gainsay the legitimacy of homosexuality-intolerant spirituality. I'm not saying that the former doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, or is self-contradictory. I am saying that the latter does exist, should exist, and is self-consistent.

And that is, from the perspective of the christian who is against homosexuality (regardless of his own sexuality), a good thing, but that they have decreasing influence on gays who are not Christian is not a good trend from their perspective.

1. No issues with this statement.

2. As to the legitimacy of homosexuality-intolerant spirituality: I'm wondering why we're talking about its legitimacy in the first place. It's a given that people have a right to believe whatever they wish, and also to be snobbish/hold bigoted views about whoever they wish. What is the point of this argument? That they have a right to attempt anything in their power (within the law) to trouble homosexuals? Where are you going with this?

3. See #2, specifically about the Right to be a Colossal Douche.

I don't know what we're even arguing. You seem to just be asserting a) Freedom of Speech includes allowing some to be a douche and b) People who, in argument, refer to anti-gay-marriage individuals as douches/bigots/theocrats aren't being neutral. To the first, I'm okay with disapproving of douchiness, and to the second... I'd rather be correct than neutral.

Oh, and the concept of being spiritually offended by the existence of something/actions of another that don't directly involve the offended. I suppose that was in response to a comment about how the anti-crowd don't suffer from such marriages? Because here's my take on that comment: Marriage is a set of rights conferred on a pair of people by a set of institutions: the government, a religious body(optional in the US), and the community. By disallowing it, those who wished to marry within the same sex are denied the rights conferred. For the religious body and the community, this simply amounts to recognition. For the government, this includes several economic and legal benefits. Denial of the government's 'wedding gift' is a grievous disadvantage, most agree. Denial of the recognition is insulting, and encourages those who would cause trouble to do so (trouble either violent or discriminatory), and others who would not to simply look away uncaringly. Also engendering fear of such. Meanwhile, the person who hears of a union they disagree with considers it an insult. Just an insult. None of the other problems. One could conceivably envision in situation #2 that the person feels threatened... but by what? More insults? Discrimination against holding discriminatory views? If the latter, I see it as an improvement - especially if contained to "only individually or (when the discriminatory views get in the way of the job) professionally".

The disparity of effects is clear: one suffers more than the other. The reasonable solution, I think, is the choice that results in less individual suffering.

[Isaac Hill]

Is there nothing that homosexuals desperately want that the christian right can rightfully deny them?

If the Christian right is having trouble thinking of things to offer gays to persuade them not to get married, that is the fault of the Christian right. If the C.r. is so bothered by homosexual marriage, then they should try to convince homosexuals to freely choose not to get married, not use the force of government to take that choice away.

You seem to think that banning gay marriage and legalizing gay marriage are equivalent positions, but they're not. Only an enacted ban relieves its proponents of the burden, and denies its opponents the ability, of competing in the marketplace of ideas. If gay marriage is legalized, the Christian right can still try to talk people out of it with talk of damnation, or denial of church membership. If that doesn't work, the churches can try to innovate and make membership more appealing.

Do you place any limits on what can be banned? If Christians can say, "Gay marriage offends us; ban it" then why can't Coca-Cola say, "Drinking Pepsi offends us; ban it"? Or Microsoft say, "Using Linux offends us; ban it"? Bringing the force of government down on something because it offends people means the force of governemnt can be brought down on anything. What are you, some kind of Socialist?

[Darryl]

I'm "capable" of framing the debate differently, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest to do so. On one side we have a group seeking equality for themselves with no intention of imposing anything on others. On the other side we have a group that is maliciously seeking to deprive those people of equality. Those two aren't equivalent under any ethical system I'm aware of.

No, they have no intention of imposing anything *that you (or they) see as having value* on others. To a religious person, the existence and prosperity of the homosexual lifestyle may impose a spiritual wrong on them. Does that warrant a legal remedy? Not at all. Does it warrant a social remedy? In my opinion it does.

I love how you went and equated "religious" with "Conservative Christian" (or possibly "Conservative Muslim" and "Conservative Jew", as well). Since last I checked, there are plenty of religions outside of those, which have plenty of adherents who describe themselves as religious.

1) Wicca, most adherents would say that their version of a marriage ceremony, handfasting, is equally valid no matter the genders of those involved. In fact, the big "gay marriage is evil" thing is primarily an Abrahaimic religion thing.
2)And even then, how about the Episcopal Churches of America, the Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America (the largest body of Lutheran churches), and multiple independent Christian congregations, all of which affirm that same-sex marriages are fine with them?

[Save Point]

how big a deal is the gay marriage thing over there? do people really care or is it just a media thing?

It's a big deal for old people. If it's not out the door soon, it will be in a decade at the latest.

[Steroid]

2. As to the legitimacy of homosexuality-intolerant spirituality: I'm wondering why we're talking about its legitimacy in the first place. It's a given that people have a right to believe whatever they wish, and also to be snobbish/hold bigoted views about whoever they wish. What is the point of this argument? That they have a right to attempt anything in their power (within the law) to trouble homosexuals? Where are you going with this?

I'm going three places with this. One is to confirm those rights, lest they be lost. Unpopular rights need the most defense, whether it's a far-left right like viewing hard-core pornography or a far-left right like hating gays. The second place I'm going is to say that beyond simply having the right to be and act bigoted, they should have the social normalcy to do so as well, or more strictly, that they should not lose that normalcy simply because of a legal correction. When the POTUS comes out in support of gay marriage, it's more than a political stance, it's a social impetus, and while I agree with the politics, I think that the social line should be held as hard as it can. And the third place I'm going is to explain that the reason I support the intolerant Christians over the homosexuals is that that strain of Christianity has had, as I said, a more positive influence on society than has the homosexual liberation movement. Christianity entwined in law is wrong, but it was a better way of life when it was entwined in the social fabric, even if that meant keeping homosexuality down.

I don't know what we're even arguing. You seem to just be asserting a) Freedom of Speech includes allowing some to be a douche and b) People who, in argument, refer to anti-gay-marriage individuals as douches/bigots/theocrats aren't being neutral. To the first, I'm okay with disapproving of douchiness, and to the second... I'd rather be correct than neutral.

re: a) I'm ok with you being ok with that. Free speech is free speech. Regarding b), what I'm asserting is that there is no "correct" that is not "neutral" when there's an issue in contention as strongly as this is. And beyond neutrality, I'm saying that you have absolutely no empathy with the side you call douches, or you wouldn't call them that. And so I have to bring out my mirror question again: why should I empathize with gays when you don't empathize with anti-gay Christians?

Oh, and the concept of being spiritually offended by the existence of something/actions of another that don't directly involve the offended. I suppose that was in response to a comment about how the anti-crowd don't suffer from such marriages? Because here's my take on that comment: Marriage is a set of rights conferred on a pair of people by a set of institutions: the government, a religious body(optional in the US), and the community. By disallowing it, those who wished to marry within the same sex are denied the rights conferred. For the religious body and the community, this simply amounts to recognition. For the government, this includes several economic and legal benefits. Denial of the government's 'wedding gift' is a grievous disadvantage, most agree. Denial of the recognition is insulting, and encourages those who would cause trouble to do so (trouble either violent or discriminatory), and others who would not to simply look away uncaringly. Also engendering fear of such. Meanwhile, the person who hears of a union they disagree with considers it an insult. Just an insult. None of the other problems. One could conceivably envision in situation #2 that the person feels threatened... but by what? More insults? Discrimination against holding discriminatory views? If the latter, I see it as an improvement - especially if contained to "only individually or (when the discriminatory views get in the way of the job) professionally".

The disparity of effects is clear: one suffers more than the other. The reasonable solution, I think, is the choice that results in less individual suffering.

That's a utilitarian view, and not everyone is a utilitarian. I would also say that if that is your view you should carry it across the entire political spectrum and advocate the most individual freedom in all cases, which is closer to my own strain of libertarianism than to utilitarianism.

Is there nothing that homosexuals desperately want that the christian right can rightfully deny them?

If the Christian right is having trouble thinking of things to offer gays to persuade them not to get married, that is the fault of the Christian right. If the C.r. is so bothered by homosexual marriage, then they should try to convince homosexuals to freely choose not to get married, not use the force of government to take that choice away.

You seem to think that banning gay marriage and legalizing gay marriage are equivalent positions, but they're not. Only an enacted ban relieves its proponents of the burden, and denies its opponents the ability, of competing in the marketplace of ideas. If gay marriage is legalized, the Christian right can still try to talk people out of it with talk of damnation, or denial of church membership. If that doesn't work, the churches can try to innovate and make membership more appealing.

Look at it this way: fifty years ago, the church didn't have to try to make membership appealing. Gays didn't want to piss off the church, not because they were afraid of damnation or denial of membership or because if they were approved they would get privileges; they didn't want to piss off the church because church-going was normal and homosexuality was deviance. Irrespective of the legality, why should the church have lost that power and have to start making an effort to convince homosexuals of their influence? The reasons it did occur were political reasons. Legalization of homosexual sex, and then homosexual adoption, and then homosexual marriage all normalized homosexual values and de-normalized Christian ones. And that in turn is based on the idea that anyone who is socially oppressed doesn't deserve it, and that is something that sounds intuitive, but which I think is incorrect.

Do you place any limits on what can be banned? If Christians can say, "Gay marriage offends us; ban it" then why can't Coca-Cola say, "Drinking Pepsi offends us; ban it"? Or Microsoft say, "Using Linux offends us; ban it"? Bringing the force of government down on something because it offends people means the force of governemnt can be brought down on anything. What are you, some kind of Socialist?

I don't want to ban anything via government. I want everyone to ban whatever they want voluntarily.

No, they have no intention of imposing anything *that you (or they) see as having value* on others. To a religious person, the existence and prosperity of the homosexual lifestyle may impose a spiritual wrong on them. Does that warrant a legal remedy? Not at all. Does it warrant a social remedy? In my opinion it does.

I love how you went and equated "religious" with "Conservative Christian" (or possibly "Conservative Muslim" and "Conservative Jew", as well). Since last I checked, there are plenty of religions outside of those, which have plenty of adherents who describe themselves as religious.

And I love how you interpreted "may impose" as "always imposes." I can't stress this enough. I am not saying that if you are religious, then you are against homosexuality. But in that denial, I am also not agreeing that if you are against homosexuality, that you are irreligious, nonspiritual, or in any way deficient in your legitimacy as a person of faith.

[Aetius]

The only thing I can get out of your argument is that you want to be a bigot without having to feel like you're a bigot.

[Lucrece]

Denying someone the influence to cause social and financial oppression to a group of people you deem inferior is not analogous to denying gay people the right to marry. You must live on a different reality than mine when you keep insisting that there are Christian values, and then there are homosexual values. Homosexuals have existed within those Christian-supremacist times, and I just think that you have no fucking idea what homosexuals have contributed to society. From Alan Turing in science and mathematics, to homosexuals contributing disproportionately to the world of art and literature.

Why are you bothered when homosexuals are given the same normalcy that has been given to religious zealotry? Why is a position intent on causing harm to homosexuals -- and that's what anti-gay religious dogma does-- worthy of remaining normalized? You seem to be stretching the meaning of "harm" a whole deal by calling the decreasing influence of Christian fundamentalists a harm inflicted on Christians.

I'm also appalled that you would see this as a competition of existence where one side cannot live unassailed without harming the other, and that this war in your eyes should preferably remain with gay people under the yoke of fundamentalist religions for the good of all (except gay people, but they don't count).

[Griffin]

I'm a bit confused:

Or can we, as I did before, draw a distinction between holy matrimony and mere contractual agreement?

If we're drawing this distinction, can't we just let the gays have their marriage contracts, and churches that desire to do so can continue to deny them holy matrimony?

I mean, that's what everyone pretty much wants anyway, right?

Because you definitely don't need government approval for holy matrimony, and government marriage paperwork means jack shit in the eyes of a decent number of churches for just that reason.

So.... if we're separating out holy matrimony and marriage contracts, I don't see why you are opposed to gays being able to get married?

[frogman]

I don't want to ban anything via government. I want everyone to ban whatever they want voluntarily.

Sweet, so you're in favor of the legalization of gay marriage at a government level, then?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

No, I'm saying that even though they differ in what's true, they're far more likely to see the other church's opinion as understandable and legitimate than would someone who argued solely from a non-spiritual perspective.

I think the position of the Catholic Church is understandable. Do I think it's legitimate? I don't know, because you still haven't told me what you mean by that.

Again, the existence of homosexuality-tolerant spirituality does not gainsay the legitimacy of homosexuality-intolerant spirituality. I'm not saying that the former doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, or is self-contradictory. I am saying that the latter does exist, should exist, and is self-consistent.

You're shifting. Originally you said that religious spirituality has contributed more than orientation equality, so I pointed out that you weren't thinking at the margins. Maybe that's not the only thing you think is relevant, fine, but I can only respond to the position that you've articulated.

[Darryl]

No, they have no intention of imposing anything *that you (or they) see as having value* on others. To a religious person, the existence and prosperity of the homosexual lifestyle may impose a spiritual wrong on them. Does that warrant a legal remedy? Not at all. Does it warrant a social remedy? In my opinion it does.

I love how you went and equated "religious" with "Conservative Christian" (or possibly "Conservative Muslim" and "Conservative Jew", as well). Since last I checked, there are plenty of religions outside of those, which have plenty of adherents who describe themselves as religious.

And I love how you interpreted "may impose" as "always imposes." I can't stress this enough. I am not saying that if you are religious, then you are against homosexuality. But in that denial, I am also not agreeing that if you are against homosexuality, that you are irreligious, nonspiritual, or in any way deficient in your legitimacy as a person of faith.

You were using that as a point in your argument against gay marriage, so yeah, it does kinda imply that you think that.

But anyway, you see why any religious argument about what marriages the government should recognize are automatically worthless then? I mean, if we followed the Catholic definition of marriage for the federal government, only Catholics who had never divorced could marry. So any attempt to use religion as an argument about government marriages is out in left field as far as rational argument is concerned.

Finally, the idea that what someone else does imposes on one's religion really says more about the person claiming it an imposition. I mean, I've never once seen a Jew who follows kosher claim that my enjoyment of bacon is an imposition on their faith, nor seen a Jehovah's Witness claim that my donating blood imposes on their faith, so why is it all of a sudden when marriage comes up, all these people pop out of the woodworks with "This is an affront and an imposition on my faith!" when the fact that homosexual people can get married to the people they love really doesn't do anything to them or their faith.

[iChef]

I've read several studies on gay marriage in the United States that point to the fact that the biggest problem is that the gay marriage laws a very misunderstood by the average voter. Opinions swing wildly depending on how the questions are asked. When you ask something simple like "Should 2 men be able to get married" many moderate to conservative people will say no. If you detail the rights and benefits marriage brings (joint tax returns and things like that) without using the word marriage people soften up quite a bit and feel homosexual people should have access to those rights. When these amendments come up for a vote the opponents don't bring up the fact that they are banning things like civil unions the just shout "Gay Marriage! Gay Marriage!" and frame it as an attack on religion when in fact a gay marriage law has absolutely no effect on any church anywhere. The best thing people in favor of gay marriages can do is educate voters as much as they can. When people fully understand the issue they are usually much more in favor of allowing some sort of union among gay people that will at least give them equal rights under the law.

Really what I would like to see happen is for this to turn into the next civil rights movement. It is really the same thing denying a huge part of the population basic rights for really no reason. I fail to see how gay people getting married changes the lives of religious people. As a Catholic the only change I would see in my life is an increase in my catering business when I will have all these gay weddings to sell my services to, which I will do happily since I don't see eye to eye with the Vatican. Actually many people in the Church don't Catholics are not in lock step as much as the outside world seems to think, I've even spoken to priests who are much more liberal then official Church policy.

I say take to to the street. There needs to be widespread organized protests and not just camping out in the park. We need to see some '60's style sit ins. Jam the capitol buildings of states that are voting with people, just down the streets outside and hand out flyers carefully detailing exactly what rights are demanded and why it is an injustice to deny them.

[Jave D]

The mere existence of homosexuals or gay marriage does not impose or wrong anybody, regardless of spirituality. Some doubtless think it is, but they are only deluding themselves and hiding behind their woefully inadequate spiritual understanding. It's just an excuse to cry foul when other people *gasp* don't believe or do the same things you do. And that is pride, a deadly sin by any reckoning. The world is as God made it. People are as God makes them. Not accepting that is ultimately disagreeing with the Almighty and implying, strongly, that the world would have been better had they created it instead.

I could argue this from other spiritual perspectives too.

There is no argument against gay marriage I've ever seen that has any merit, and especially not spiritual merit. The people who tend to oppose it so vocally and actively are among the least spiritual people I can imagine. To them I'd say that if your worldview, or if your marriage, is threatened by the existence of gays or gay marriage, your worldview is fragile and your marriage tenuous at best. At least, I would say that, if such people were capable of listening. In my experience they aren't. Troglodytes.

[Ghostbear]

And I can find stories on MSNBC that would slant the other way about the North Carolina laws, not to mention blogs and LBGT groups. There's advocacy on both sides of an issue, that's not news.

You were the one stating that there wasn't any outrage for one side of the issue however. By your own statements, it should be news to you.

So you agree that it's a perfectly legitimate spiritual opinion that a homosexual cannot be a saint? Well, that's a start.

But those aren't in regular practice. If canonization were something that happened daily and churches were giving out little "Saint" badges to be worn around town and people respected those who had them, but refused to give them to homosexuals, I think we would either see homosexuals fighting the churches for inclusion (again, purely in the social/cultural arena, not politically) or see the general culture further marginalize the churches' stature in the community.

Since sainthood is determined entirely by the church, has no effect on anything outside of the church, is an idea that is the church's, and by definition can not influence that person's life (since it only happens after they're dead), yes, sure. Also, yes, if the church diminished the religious aspects of sainthood, basically tossing aside all of their current criteria -- including sharing that religion --, then I would expect people to view it as something that should no longer be kept from a group 'just because we don't like them'.

And that's what I'm against. On the whole I think the community of religious spirituality has been a superior force in the world when compared to the community of homosexual values.

Even if that statement is 100% correct (and I find the very nature of it suspect; what are "homosexual values"? Why are they opposed to spirituality? There are more religions than the abrahamic ones.), it has no bearing on whether or not a group of people deserve equal rights.

If a Christian is not wronged when a homosexual inclusively uses the word marriage to describe his partnership, then how is the homosexual wronged when the Christian exclusively uses the word to describe his? Are you saying there's an inherent superiority to inclusion over exclusion? If so, why?

Did you read anything I wrote? Getting marriage is not a practice that christians have exclusivity to. They never have. They weren't even the first to do so! You don't have any position to actually deny that right to someone. Literally (and I mean actual literally and not figurative literally), there are no grounds under which you can claim that marriage is an exclusive christian concept. The only reason this is even an issue is being christianity has had a significant amount of influence on legality in the US. In the end, however, marriage is not (not not not not not not NOT) a religious practice by default. The US is, by law, a secular nation, and also has understood (through court rulings) that 'separate but equal' is inherently incapable of being equal. All of your opposition to marriage equality is religious based, which consider the prior facts, means you don't have any actual opposition that is sufficient for it in the US.

To whatever degree there is non-religion in marriage, no. I just think that degree is less than you think.

Well, you're wrong on that second part. As long ago as 1960, 38.4% of marriages in the US were purely civil marriages. Religious practice has been going down over the years -- all trends would indicate that the number should be even higher today.

I'm also a little suspicious that your standard happens to coincide perfectly with what is valuable to the homosexual. You're not arguing that homosexuals should have the right to christian marriages or certain marriage ceremonies or the love and respect of the christian right, but for the most part homosexuals don't want that. Is there nothing that homosexuals desperately want that the christian right can rightfully deny them?

Does it matter? It doesn't matter if the church wants to deny them a right if they have no grounds to deny it to them. They don't have any grounds to deny marriage, because as I've emphasized, it is not the church's in the first place. You can't deny something to somebody when you don't have exclusive rights to it.

[The Great Hippo]

On the subject of Christianity, spirituality, homosexuality, marriage, and scripture, I watched a video recently that has a lot of really good stuff to say. If you're interested in progressive Christian viewpoints on gay marriage, I highly recommend you watch it (even though it's pretty long). I think I described it elsewhere as "An argument to Christians, by a Christian, made in a pro-Christian way"--which makes it stand out (most of these dialogues start from a non-Christian or even anti-Christian perspective).

Here's the link.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Transcript.