5 ms·

> I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. I keep seeing this line from gay ma

by dubfan 13y ago

> I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. I keep seeing this line from gay marriage supporters. I always have to ask, what exactly is the pro-gay-marriage movement about then? It sounds to me like it's exactly what you're describing here. Disclaimer: I support same-sex marriage.

Karunamon 13y ago
There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat. Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.
- dubfan 13y ago
  See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry". It's a very strong label that kills any meaningful dialogue. There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony This is patently false. Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. There is a massive problem with your view. You think a religious belief holds any legal sway. It does not. Laws based on religious overtones are absolutely forbidden by the supreme law of the land. This might be different in other countries, but here? No law concerning an establishment of religion. In other words, whether or not a law conflicts with any given religious belief is utterly irrelevant to that law. It should not at any point enter the discussion. >There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable. Yada yada being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      >Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. Neither does government, so why does it matter what government calls it?
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        Because the government definition is tied to various contracts and benefits.
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        But those contracts and benefits can be had without the word. Was Prop 8 attempting to permanently remove the ability to gain those benefits?
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now. California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contracts that recognize a marriage (out of state insurance comes to mind)? Etc? Those would all be invalid. You've also ensured that any union in California (ANYONE's, not just LGBT's) would be invalid in any other state because they're legally not marriages anymore. I say this solution introduces what would be known in the packaging world as dependency hell. Too many other things rely on the first thing to exist in its current state. You've introduced a change that is going to break a lot of things without dealing with them first. Bad idea all around. * Amend the legal definition of marriage to include any two people. Simplest thing that could possibly work, ensures that marriages performed in the state will be recognized elsewhere and for other purposes. No dependency issues. Annoys the religious folks a bit, but religious views have no say in law anyways!
        13y ago
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    > Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony This depends on where and when you constrain your view. Marriage is a diverse institution with as many manifestations as there are years in the existence of civilization.
  - bane 13y ago
    > Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. Let's buy that argument for a moment. And let's suppose that religious interference in law isn't explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. Which religion or religious faction then should supply the law? The particular Christian denomination I was raised in says gay people can marry and they'll even do the marrying. And they can even become priests! They represent over 2 million (1 in 150) Americans. I can think of at least a half dozen other Christian denominations alone that not only allow for same-sex marriage, but will perform marriage and otherwise allow for full religious participation of gay members. Why should the teachings of my religion be shut down in favor of somebody else's? Who gets to pick which religion we follow? Am I now being forced to follow somebody else's religion? (I don't support forcing other religions to observe same-sex relationships, people are free to leave their religion and go somewhere else or nowhere as they please).
  - Sandman 13y ago
    > Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. Couldn't the same be said about civil marriage in general? Yet I don't see many religious groups opposing civil marriage between a man and a woman.
- baddox 13y ago
  There's a fundamental difference between supporting the government's authority in the realm of marriage, and supporting the government's authority to ban homosexuality itself. One can, for example, easily oppose laws which ban homosexual cohabitation, while also opposing government having any role in marriage.

by dubfan 13y ago

Karunamon 13y ago

There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat. Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.

dubfan 13y ago
See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry". It's a very strong label that kills any meaningful dialogue. There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony This is patently false. Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. There is a massive problem with your view. You think a religious belief holds any legal sway. It does not. Laws based on religious overtones are absolutely forbidden by the supreme law of the land. This might be different in other countries, but here? No law concerning an establishment of religion. In other words, whether or not a law conflicts with any given religious belief is utterly irrelevant to that law. It should not at any point enter the discussion. >There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable. Yada yada being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    >Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. Neither does government, so why does it matter what government calls it?
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      Because the government definition is tied to various contracts and benefits.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        But those contracts and benefits can be had without the word. Was Prop 8 attempting to permanently remove the ability to gain those benefits?
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now. California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contracts that recognize a marriage (out of state insurance comes to mind)? Etc? Those would all be invalid. You've also ensured that any union in California (ANYONE's, not just LGBT's) would be invalid in any other state because they're legally not marriages anymore. I say this solution introduces what would be known in the packaging world as dependency hell. Too many other things rely on the first thing to exist in its current state. You've introduced a change that is going to break a lot of things without dealing with them first. Bad idea all around. * Amend the legal definition of marriage to include any two people. Simplest thing that could possibly work, ensures that marriages performed in the state will be recognized elsewhere and for other purposes. No dependency issues. Annoys the religious folks a bit, but religious views have no say in law anyways!
        13y ago
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  > Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony This depends on where and when you constrain your view. Marriage is a diverse institution with as many manifestations as there are years in the existence of civilization.
- bane 13y ago
  > Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. Let's buy that argument for a moment. And let's suppose that religious interference in law isn't explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. Which religion or religious faction then should supply the law? The particular Christian denomination I was raised in says gay people can marry and they'll even do the marrying. And they can even become priests! They represent over 2 million (1 in 150) Americans. I can think of at least a half dozen other Christian denominations alone that not only allow for same-sex marriage, but will perform marriage and otherwise allow for full religious participation of gay members. Why should the teachings of my religion be shut down in favor of somebody else's? Who gets to pick which religion we follow? Am I now being forced to follow somebody else's religion? (I don't support forcing other religions to observe same-sex relationships, people are free to leave their religion and go somewhere else or nowhere as they please).
- Sandman 13y ago
  > Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. Couldn't the same be said about civil marriage in general? Yet I don't see many religious groups opposing civil marriage between a man and a woman.
baddox 13y ago
There's a fundamental difference between supporting the government's authority in the realm of marriage, and supporting the government's authority to ban homosexuality itself. One can, for example, easily oppose laws which ban homosexual cohabitation, while also opposing government having any role in marriage.