3 ms·

there's a great deal of diversity in religion. The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other gro

there's a great deal of diversity in religion. The fact that some religious groups have taken a particular stand doesn't make it "not pushy" to force other groups to follow. EDIT: for example, a lot of religions don't have a problem with pork, but some do. It would be pushy to require a kosher or halal deli to serve pork. Likewise, there are some who want to require, say, Southern Baptist churches to perform same-sex weddings; that's pushy.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "There's nothing in the bible saying they can't do that" ... in your understanding of the Bible. Not every Christian group agrees with the way you understand it. Also keep in mind that many Christian groups rely on more than just the Bible for authority (both Catholics and the Orthodox hold a very high view of tradition, compared to the Protestant view of tradition as dangerous.) There are also religious groups that aren't Christian which also have objections to performing same-sex weddings. Anyway, thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      > "indefensible interpretation" They believe they have defenses for their interpretations, and that's all that should matter from a religious liberty perspective. Neither you nor I nor the government qualify as the final arbiter of "true Christianity" or "correct Bible interpretation" (or "true Islam" or "true Mormonism" or any of the other religions which might object to same-sex marriage.) It's not my place, or yours, or the government's, to force our understanding of what the Bible says onto groups that think the Bible (or the Pope or the Synod) says otherwise. If members of the community wish to perform acts which are against a particular church's beliefs, they don't need to perform those acts in that church (and if you want bacon, you don't need to shop at a kosher deli.) There are plenty of alternatives -- like you said, other churches that will happily perform those ceremonies for them, or even the courthouse. EDIT: just so there's no misunderstanding: I support your right to have whatever relationship you want to have with whatever consenting adult(s) you want to have it with. But none of us have the right to tell anybody else that they have to participate in the celebration of any relationship. (If a church wants to turn away Brittney Spears because her understanding of marriage offends them, that's also their right.)
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        lotharbot 12y ago
        Someone upthread suggested that all that's going on is "acknowledging existence" of homosexuals, and that one must engage in mental gymnastics to use phrases like "pushing homosexuality on everyone". I don't have a problem with pressure. I have a problem with people saying that nobody is pushing when some people actually are. Thank you for being honest about trying to pressure and compel religious groups to change. (I, too, often pressure my own religion for change -- though I prefer compelling arguments to financial threats.)
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        lotharbot 12y ago
        "pay taxes ... just like everyone else" is a little bit misleading. Organizations pay taxes if they operate for-profit, and don't if they operate not-for-profit. We don't allow for-profit, tax-paying corporations to discriminate. Why, then, do we think the appropriate response to a religious organization being discriminatory is to treat them as a for-profit organization? It seems to me that tax law isn't the right tool to be wielding; it's very philosophically inconsistent. More than that, it seems to me that the government's responsibility should be to allow for maximum diversity of opinion and practice. The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic violence (whether motivated by race, gender, sexuality, or any other factor.) The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic economic discrimination. But I don't see a compelling interest in eliminating all forms of discrimination everywhere. I think it's a Good Thing (TM) that religious organizations can decide who is and isn't a part of them. Even if that means some religious organizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. they should have that right within their own doors. (Some religious groups have even more extreme requirements for marriage. Because Mormons believe in eternal marriage, they won't "seal" a divorced or widowed woman who has already been "sealed" before. It's discriminatory, but well within their rights as an organization.)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

lotharbot 12y ago
> "There's nothing in the bible saying they can't do that" ... in your understanding of the Bible. Not every Christian group agrees with the way you understand it. Also keep in mind that many Christian groups rely on more than just the Bible for authority (both Catholics and the Orthodox hold a very high view of tradition, compared to the Protestant view of tradition as dangerous.) There are also religious groups that aren't Christian which also have objections to performing same-sex weddings. Anyway, thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    > "indefensible interpretation" They believe they have defenses for their interpretations, and that's all that should matter from a religious liberty perspective. Neither you nor I nor the government qualify as the final arbiter of "true Christianity" or "correct Bible interpretation" (or "true Islam" or "true Mormonism" or any of the other religions which might object to same-sex marriage.) It's not my place, or yours, or the government's, to force our understanding of what the Bible says onto groups that think the Bible (or the Pope or the Synod) says otherwise. If members of the community wish to perform acts which are against a particular church's beliefs, they don't need to perform those acts in that church (and if you want bacon, you don't need to shop at a kosher deli.) There are plenty of alternatives -- like you said, other churches that will happily perform those ceremonies for them, or even the courthouse. EDIT: just so there's no misunderstanding: I support your right to have whatever relationship you want to have with whatever consenting adult(s) you want to have it with. But none of us have the right to tell anybody else that they have to participate in the celebration of any relationship. (If a church wants to turn away Brittney Spears because her understanding of marriage offends them, that's also their right.)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - lotharbot 12y ago
        Someone upthread suggested that all that's going on is "acknowledging existence" of homosexuals, and that one must engage in mental gymnastics to use phrases like "pushing homosexuality on everyone". I don't have a problem with pressure. I have a problem with people saying that nobody is pushing when some people actually are. Thank you for being honest about trying to pressure and compel religious groups to change. (I, too, often pressure my own religion for change -- though I prefer compelling arguments to financial threats.)
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        lotharbot 12y ago
        "pay taxes ... just like everyone else" is a little bit misleading. Organizations pay taxes if they operate for-profit, and don't if they operate not-for-profit. We don't allow for-profit, tax-paying corporations to discriminate. Why, then, do we think the appropriate response to a religious organization being discriminatory is to treat them as a for-profit organization? It seems to me that tax law isn't the right tool to be wielding; it's very philosophically inconsistent. More than that, it seems to me that the government's responsibility should be to allow for maximum diversity of opinion and practice. The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic violence (whether motivated by race, gender, sexuality, or any other factor.) The government has a compelling interest in stopping systematic economic discrimination. But I don't see a compelling interest in eliminating all forms of discrimination everywhere. I think it's a Good Thing (TM) that religious organizations can decide who is and isn't a part of them. Even if that means some religious organizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. they should have that right within their own doors. (Some religious groups have even more extreme requirements for marriage. Because Mormons believe in eternal marriage, they won't "seal" a divorced or widowed woman who has already been "sealed" before. It's discriminatory, but well within their rights as an organization.)