Changing attitudes towards gay marriage

[Perd Hapley]

And, while that's true, there are [relatively] modern religions for which "persecution" is neither an abstract nor hyperbole.

There are still a great many "Christians" who can't reconcile themselves with Mormonism.  Not a month goes by that I don't hear (or see) someone use the word "cult" in reference to it, and they're actually not kidding.  The LDS church has mostly gained recognition as a mainstream religion, but there is no shortage of people who would happily see it dismantled.

Hmm. I've never thought of "dismantling" the LDS, but I guess you'd have to explain why that's such a bad goal. Maybe I don't find the LDS to be a positive influence. What's that to you?

There's certainly no reason to "kid" about the LDS being a cult, it just helps if you understand the sense in which people are using the term. Here's an LDS web site explaining it:

One definition listed for ‘cult’ in Webster’s Dictionary is “a religion regarded as unorthodox.” Since the roots of Mormonism are not a break off from the Catholic or Protestant churches, it is seen by some as “unorthodox.” For example, the LDS definition of the Godhead differs from the Nicene Creed accepted by most Catholic or Protestant churches. The “cult” label is usually applied by Church opponents attempting to criticize or discredit the Church.

http://mormon.org/faq/mormon-church

So, yeah, if Christians think the LDS are so far out of the mainstream that the "cult" label applies, then there's no need for you to wonder why some call it a cult. Just like some consider the Roman Catholic church to be a cult. And some wonder if the Oneness Pentecostals can really be considered Christians.

And as long as other religious folks are being offended, I'll cop to being offended by people who claim that we're being mean, or intolerant or divisive, when we say that our religion has certain fundamental tenets, and those who deny those tenets are not in the club. If you don't want to go along with our religion's principles, then quit claiming to belong to it.

And to bring things back on topic; if you don't want to be joined to a person of the opposite sex, quit claiming that you want to be married. Follow the rules, or start your own club.

[Perd Hapley]

So, what is your solution? Let's make divorce nigh impossible, to strengthen marriage? Then modern people will simply not marry.

Well, the solution is clearly not to further "desanctify" marriage, which was your prescription. That's not working out so well. We can decry the state of affairs in past eras, and we may not wish to be as rigid as the Victorians, but we certainly can't claim to be doing any better than they were. I think we can, and really must, find a middle ground where marriage is neither an inescapable trap, nor a fictional "commitment" in which no one really commits.

The social costs of what? Desanctifying marriage? Making divorce easy? Having gov payoffs for single mothers, so welfare women are incentivized to produce a bunch of kids? I feel like a dentist here. Give us your version in a consistent way, so I understand your claims.

  I'm not sure I mentioned welfare. And I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to your idea of "desanctifying marriage." I'm just pointing out that your argument was made decades ago, we tried what you said, and your position has turned out to be wrong.

People make mistakes. They need to be able to make their choices but then be able to fix them as well. Building up walls to entry and to exit makes marriage a prison. Nobody would support that. It goes beyond conservative and into some lalaland.

Only in lalaland is anyone saying that marriage should be inescapable. And the bygone era in which divorce was more difficult was not lalaland, either. People supported tougher marriage laws and more austere social attitudes once. They might do so again.

But, silly me, I thought we libertarians were all about choices have consequences, and honoring contracts and such. Maybe I'm on the wrong forum. 

[slingshot]

People make mistakes. They need to be able to make their choices but then be able to fix them as well. Building up walls to entry and to exit makes marriage a prison. Nobody would support that. It goes beyond conservative and into some lalaland.

[I'm presenting this for the sake of a purely religious perspective on divorce.]

My Mother would have said that people make their choices and have to live with those choices especially if there are children for the overall good of society, not personal satisfaction or pleasure.  You made your own prison and many Americans have unhealthy expectations of marriage.  I used to think she lived in LaLaLand at times when I was younger, but I am not so certain any more.  The attitude holds the family together.

If you are a Catholic and were married in the church, you get a civil divorce... you're out or you can not "enjoy" the benefits of the religion which for those that know is the Sacraments.  Many divorced Catholics who are religious become Episcopalian where the service is essentially the same but have more liberal rules about divorce.  But for Catholics in the USA, that is not the answer.

How can the Catholic religion recognize same sex marriage?  They won't even recognize female priests and so forth.  The rules are the rules.

I think a strong adherence to morality issues especially outwardly is an important condition that favors stability in the family and the country.

By the way, I am a divorced Catholic who would not be considered a very good catholic.  But I have very high ethical standards that transcend profit.

[Ron]

>Soon the new "other" will be the Christians that hold historical and traditional beliefs. <

Oh boy...

This suggestion ("Christians are persecuted!") is actually somewhat offensive to those of us who have dealt with actual religious persecution.

Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution

Who used the term persecution?

There is a level of oppression though.

Making by force of law (ie threat of violence) Christians fund abortion and others birth control is happening. Making "Christian institutions" supply health insurance that funds the above is happening.

Making Christians accept the bastardization of the concept of marriage will happen by force of law eventually also. How that effects the hiring practices of churches and religious institutions, the practice of marriage ceremonies and what can be preached from the pulpit will then be the next targets.

See Canada and swaths of Europe for an object lesson in the progression.

Once the majority of adults in the USA are those who have been indoctrinated in our current public school social engineering project, those who hold traditional Christian views of morality will increasingly be that "other".

      

[Fly320s]

I don't care whether gay marriage is legal or not; it won't affect me either way.  I am surprised that such a small percentage of the population (less than 5%, probably closer to 2%) has such a big influence on public laws.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Marriage these days just means "two people who love each other." According to that definition, gay marriage makes perfect sense. According to that definition, marriage is also pretty vapid, and should be replaced with "I really like this girl/guy" licenses instead. Why is there a 2-person limit? I have no problem loving two (or more) girls simultaneously. Why can't I marry two of them, or three?

Is there a better definition of marriage available?

[Strings]

>And as long as other religious folks are being offended, I'll cop to being offended by people who claim that we're being mean, or intolerant or divisive, when we say that our religion has certain fundamental tenets, and those who deny those tenets are not in the club. If you don't want to go along with our religion's principles, then quit claiming to belong to it.<

There, you and I are in lock-step. Believe that or not as you will...

>And to bring things back on topic; if you don't want to be joined to a person of the opposite sex, quit claiming that you want to be married. Follow the rules, or start your own club.<

I've outlined this so many times: the ones pushing for the term "marriage", not willing to settle for anything "less", are mostly just rabble rousers. If the majority of the states had some form of civil union available to gays, that afforded the partners the same protections and such as marriage, they'd be fine with that.

>Who used the term persecution?<

I described persecution of the "Other". you identified Christians as (soon to be) "Other". That suggests persecution of Christians.

All of my personal experiences have been of Christians persecuting other faiths, while claiming to be picked on when they don't get to enact the tennets of the Christian faith into law.

When YOU have people offering to use you as firewood because of your faith, when YOU have folks in your military chain of command openly denigrating your faith, when YOU have to hide your faith in order to protect your job... THEN, you can claim persecution. I've dealt with all three (and seen MANY other examples, all done by Christians aimed at other faiths)

>There is a level of oppression though.<

I would argue "oppression". But we'll continue...

>Making by force of law (ie threat of violence) Christians fund abortion and others birth control is happening. Making "Christian institutions" supply health insurance that funds the above is happening.<

And I disagree with this actions

>Making Christians accept the bastardization of the concept of marriage will happen by force of law eventually also.<

See my previous explanation as to how to work around this

>How that effects the hiring practices of churches and religious institutions, the practice of marriage ceremonies and what can be preached from the pulpit will then be the next targets.<

And I am just as against that happening too. So long as you don't try to force the the rest of us to follow Christian rules for our lives.

But this always seems to come down to an all or nothing debate, somehow...

[Terpsichore]

"So, a bunch of people are stuck in a bad relationship, so if they stay, they suffer until dead. If they leave, their religion treats them like lepers. Then they try to move to new relationships and bring a ton of unresolved baggage, for all to enjoy."

That was something that was pounded into my head growing up from my parents.  "Divorce is not an option, you pray when things get bad and they will be answered.  That's the only true way."  I don't share that viewpoint, which is part of why I will never discuss religion with my parents anymore. 

As for the "so they stay..." part:  Some of us stay because of our children, wanting them to have a solid parental foundation.  So we put on a happy face for them and don't let them see our tears and do our best to be as good of parents as we can.  You're right, too, I know some people at the church I belonged to before I stopped going that would act like you didn't exist if they knew you were divorced, which isn't right.  People have enough to worry about than if the one place that, traditionally, has been a sanctuary, will treat them as lepers.

Whatever happened to playing nice in the sandbox?

[zxcvbob]

"So, a bunch of people are stuck in a bad relationship, so if they stay, they suffer until dead. If they leave, their religion treats them like lepers. Then they try to move to new relationships and bring a ton of unresolved baggage, for all to enjoy."

That was something that was pounded into my head growing up from my parents.  "Divorce is not an option, you pray when things get bad and they will be answered.  That's the only true way."  I don't share that viewpoint, which is part of why I will never discuss religion with my parents anymore. 

As for the "so they stay..." part:  Some of us stay because of our children, wanting them to have a solid parental foundation.  So we put on a happy face for them and don't let them see our tears and do our best to be as good of parents as we can.  You're right, too, I know some people at the church I belonged to before I stopped going that would act like you didn't exist if they knew you were divorced, which isn't right.  People have enough to worry about than if the one place that, traditionally, has been a sanctuary, will treat them as lepers.

Whatever happened to playing nice in the sandbox?

Why do you hate gays so much that you wanna inflict this on them too?   

[Strings]

Thinking about it: why is it we ALWAYS start talking about immorality and divorce when these threads start?

Actually being serious: wouldn't gays wanting to codify their relationship, and remain together for "the long haul", be a moral thing?

[Terpsichore]

Um.....Last I checked, I never said I hated them.  If you wish to know, I'm all for them having the right to marry the one they love.  So there.  

[Perd Hapley]

Thinking about it: why is it we ALWAYS start talking about immorality and divorce when these threads start?

Actually being serious: wouldn't gays wanting to codify their relationship, and remain together for "the long haul", be a moral thing?

You're kidding, right? 

[Perd Hapley]

Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution

Nobody said it did.

When YOU have people offering to use you as firewood because of your faith, when YOU have folks in your military chain of command openly denigrating your faith, when YOU have to hide your faith in order to protect your job... THEN, you can claim persecution. I've dealt with all three (and seen MANY other examples, all done by Christians aimed at other faiths)

When you are fed to lions, and burned alive, because you won't sacrifice one pinch of incense to the emperor...THEN, you can claim persecution. Christians have dealt with this.

See, two can play at this game.   

[White Horseradish]

See, two can play that this game.   

No, they can't. Unless you have witnessed this personally. Or it happened to you.

[slingshot]

I guess you had to witness or experience "it" personally to know something is true...  consider the Jews during the Hilter years in Germany.  I didn't witness it or experience it, so I guess it is not true.

[dogmush]

I guess you had to witness or experience "it" personally to know something is true...  consider the Jews during the Hilter years in Germany.  I didn't witness it or experience it, so I guess it is not true.

Ummm no, but when making claims of current trends in persecution first hand accounts have more weight than events of thousands of years ago.

For better or worse, Christianity has been the prime persecuter on the planet for about 800 or so years. Not a monopoly, but they definately held the title.  Arguably they tropped off in the last 50 or so.  But when talking about recent religious percecution it's good to remember that.

[White Horseradish]

I guess you had to witness or experience "it" personally to know something is true...  consider the Jews during the Hilter years in Germany.  I didn't witness it or experience it, so I guess it is not true.

Not at all. It isn't a matter of it being true or not. It's a matter of being true right now.

[Perd Hapley]

 

The fact that some people of religion x have had a harder time than some people of religion y does not mean religion y isn't facing persecution. Or if you like, we could call it harassment. Regardless, even if Christians are persecuting/harassing pagans, that doesn't mean Christians can't be persecuted/harassed themselves. So that line of argument is a non-starter.

Maybe some people here should consider that, just because they don't hear about Christians being persecuted, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And while I don't believe everything I hear, there is no shortage of stories about Christians' religious freedom being curtailed. It usually involves a public school, and an administration that doesn't understand the laws under which they are supposed to operate. Public schools are supposed to allow religious clubs to operate within their schools, or on their property, in the same way they allow other clubs. Students are supposed to be allowed to pray before meals, or read religious materials, just like they are allowed to talk to their friends at lunch, or read other books. Not all schools understand this, or choose to do the right thing.

I, personally, know a girl that was told she could not bring her Bible to school. Obviously, her parents could have fought that and won, but the school did it anyway. I know an atheist who persuaded his school to ban a Christian club, then made them reverse their decision when he decided he wanted to be a Christian himself.

No, it's not lions or fire. But it is something that should bother anyone who believes in freedom of religion. It little becomes us to insist that only our people face opposition, and you have to go through what we went through, or we don't care about your problems.  

[Ron]

For better or worse, Christianity has been the prime persecuter on the planet for about 800 or so years. Not a monopoly, but they definately held the title.  Arguably they tropped off in the last 50 or so.  But when talking about recent religious percecution it's good to remember that.

Ha! What a load of BS.

Take the whole history of so called "Christians" persecution of folks and it wouldn't even come close to what the USSR accomplished in the name of their secular religious system. Now add China and the Khmer Rouge to the mix and you can get a real feel for just how noble the secularists and materialists can be without the encumbrance of religion. Then of course we have the fascists who also worship the state like the Nazi's.

I'm a little concerned about you folks with no religion, seems like lack of religion plays a big part in genocide, mass murder and all kinds of inhumanity to others. You're the kind of folks that round up the Bible believers and Jews and disappear them, for the good of the community. I gots my eye on you  

Seems like the common ingredient in persecution here is human beings, not religion.

[Jamisjockey]

Ha! What a load of BS.

Take the whole history of so called "Christians" persecution of folks and it wouldn't even come close to what the USSR accomplished in the name of their secular religious system. Now add China to the mix and you can get a real feel for just how noble the secularists and materialists can be without the encumbrance of religion. Then of course we have the fascists who also worship the state like the Nazi's.

I'm a little concerned about you folks with no religion, seems like lack of religion plays a big part in genocide, mass murder and all kinds of inhumanity to others. You're the kind of folks that round up the Bible believers and Jews and disappear them, for the good of the community. I gots my eye on you 

Seems like the common ingredient persecution here is human beings, not religion.

And government.

[Ron]

And government.

Plus one zillion for emphasis.

[dogmush]

1.  I'm not without religion, I just don't discuss mine on the internet much.

2. Please. I've never defended the atrocities of Communism, and much of the Christian sponsored atrocities had a large government role, but then they were Christian governments.  That said the USSR, China, and some crazy Cambodians? One century of blood?  The Cross has the blood of literally half the world at its feet.  The history of European expansion is by and large a history of subjugation to the cross. Entire civilizations wiped out.  The USSR couldn't even wipe out the Chechans.

[Chuck Dye]

We don't have an "ist" term for sexual preferences.

How about contortionist?  I've yet to encounter one, but bet I could develop a preference. 

[Strings]

>When you are fed to lions, and burned alive, because you won't sacrifice one pinch of incense to the emperor...THEN, you can claim persecution. Christians have dealt with this.<

"Christians" have dealt with this. While I have personally had people offer to burn me at the stake (thank goddess for illegally carried weapons), had many parts of my chain of command in the Nav decide it was fun to push religion on the pagan, and have been at jobs where I had to hide my faith or risk firing (while the Christians were allowed to flaunt). And have personally witnessed many more such occurances.

>The fact that some people of religion x have had a harder time than some people of religion y does not mean religion y isn't facing persecution. Or if you like, we could call it harassment. Regardless, even if Christians are persecuting/harassing pagans, that doesn't mean Christians can't be persecuted/harassed themselves. So that line of argument is a non-starter.<

"Persecution" and "harassment" are two different things. Goes back to the whole "words have meaning" thing.

While harassment can be considered a form of mild persecution, most people think of more... severe things when they hear the word "persecution".

>Maybe some people here should consider that, just because they don't hear about Christians being persecuted, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And while I don't believe everything I hear, there is no shortage of stories about Christians' religious freedom being curtailed.<

Which, WAY too often for my taste, mean "Christians aren't being allowed to have everything their way". I'll grant there are exceptions, but the majority?

>It usually involves a public school, and an administration that doesn't understand the laws under which they are supposed to operate. Public schools are supposed to allow religious clubs to operate within their schools, or on their property, in the same way they allow other clubs. Students are supposed to be allowed to pray before meals, or read religious materials, just like they are allowed to talk to their friends at lunch, or read other books. Not all schools understand this, or choose to do the right thing.<

Ok... I've heard of some of this. That isn't "persecution", that's "School admin is made up of frelling morons". Since when is THIS a newsflash?

>I, personally, know a girl that was told she could not bring her Bible to school. Obviously, her parents could have fought that and won, but the school did it anyway. I know an atheist who persuaded his school to ban a Christian club, then made them reverse their decision when he decided he wanted to be a Christian himself.<

Cool! And do you know people who have had to defend themselves from beatings, because they won't praise Jesus?

How about people wearing a crucifix, because they've seen the school they work at fire people for not being Christian (public school, mind you)?

How many times have you seen a Christian cemetery denied permits to operate, simply because it's Christian?

And really, fistful, you (personally) should be the last person on this board to try calling for religious tolerance...

>No, it's not lions or fire. But it is something that should bother anyone who believes in freedom of religion. It little becomes us to insist that only our people face opposition, and you have to go through what we went through, or we don't care about your problems.  <

Ahhh... see, I DO care about their problems. And I'll fight for your right to believe in the carpenter, while I VERY rarely see a Christian willing to do more than give lip service to my being allowed to believe in my goddess.

And I certainly am not seeing anyone other than Christians trying to codify their religious beliefs into law, which brings us right back around to the question of gay marriage.

[Strings]

And no, I'm not kidding. Explain please, why we have to discuss divorce and immorality every time gay marriage comes up?