[Restayvien]

I have usually been pretty liberal when it comes to same-sex relationships and marriage. My personal belief is that it is a sin, but so is lying, cheating, stealing etc etc and people do these things all the time so to treat homosexuals differently simply based on their sexual preferences seemed odd to me. I have been against Christian marriage between same-sex couples not due to hatred or phobia but simply because that is not what Christian marriage is intended for and I feel it is making a mockery of the whole thing. I see civil ceremonies as perfectly acceptable. My basic stance has been 'live and let live' and I have accepted the pro-gay argument that what consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is none of anyone's business.


However I have been hearing increasingly over the past few years of cases where various religious groups are (ironically) judged to be evil for having a negative view of homosexuality. I read this blog and it actually made me think - see what you make of it.

Your Beliefs are Going to be Called "Hatred"

By Patrick McIlheran


NPR tells the story of the wedding photographers in New Mexico, a couple, who just happen to think that marriage is what everyone has always thought it was until pretty much yesterday.
So when a woman was planning to "marry" her girlfriend, she emailed Elane Photography in Albuquerque to inquire about a shoot. The photographers replied simply that the company doesn't shoot same-sex weddings but thanks for asking. They later explained they just don't want to use their abilities in the service of something they saw as wrong.
They got sued.

And they lost: The New Mexico Human Rights Commission told them to pay the plaintiff's $6,600 lawyer bill. At the hearing, the plaintiff explained her feelings:
"We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred."

Sounded to me more like a simple matter of declining a job on account of religious beliefs, but that apparently now constitutes "hatred."
Nor, reports NPR, is this an isolated case. The radio network mentions the Methodist group that owns a seaside pavilion in New Jersey that's sometimes used for weddings, along with church services. It's in a religious camp owned by the church group. The group happens to believe that marriage involves, necessarily, a man and a woman. In this, it's no different than most Christian denominations, as well as many Jews, practically all Muslims and tens of millions of people of other faiths.
So when a lesbian couple wanted to get married there, the church group said no, it wouldn't let its property be used for something it thinks is wrong. It got sued, it lost, and now the state repealed the property's church tax exemption.

There's more:

"As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

"'What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say "No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so?" What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?' Stern asks.

"Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.
"A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.
"A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court."

This illustrates exactly why when courts redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, it is no simple matter of letting private individuals do what they wish. Marriage is fundamentally not a private matter. The relationship at its heart is, and in fact the sexual part of that relationship has been kept discreetly behind bedroom doors for very good reasons. But apart from the relationship, which necessarily is entirely the business of the couple that's in it, the marriage is a public act – a public declaration of a status that demands all others regard the couple no longer merely as two individuals but as a pair, a unit, an entity. Marriage asks strangers to treat a couple differently because their relationship is a particular and intimate one.

Now we see what happens when this newly redefined right to have strangers regard one's relationship as particular and intimate crashes into the reality that most of the world's religions regard such intimacy between two women or two men as wrong in one way or another – as "fundamentally disordered," as the Catholics put it.
What happens is that judges sweep the religious views aside.

Not that courts are outlawing the mere belief that gay sex is a sin, at least not yet. But as Marc D. Stern of the American Jewish Congress writes in Tuesday's L.A. Times, allowing mere belief or not actually forcing clergy to perform gay "marriages" is an awfully narrow view of religious liberty. The practical effect is that religions are increasingly stopped from behaving as if they believed that homosexual relationships were wrong. Believers can believe; they just can't let that belief govern their actions if it in any way impairs what is a new right to have one's homosexual relationship affirmed by the implicit social approval that comes with marriage. Under this new calculus, so much as merely declining to shoot pictures for pay amounts to an unacceptable "hatred."

And religions thus find themselves the target of the self-righteous preening of opinion-page thugs who make mendacious comparisons to interracial marriage (something both biologically different and something never theologically condemned on anything like the scale as homosexual unions), as if to suggest that the world's religions are on a moral plane with racists.

This is the political counterpart of the legal process mandating an acceptance of homosexuality as normal. Any who disagree are, as L.A. Times' editorialists insinuate, bigots, just as doctors who choose not to do in-vitro fertilization for gay couples were told by one California justice, NPR reports, to consider another line of work.

That new line of work had better not be wedding photography, either, apparently. The list of occupations in which courts can say freedom of conscience is trumped by the right of gay people to have their relationships celebrated may well grow. This is what it looks like when courts decide to marginalize a religious belief. It leads to the gradual exile of religious belief from any part of life other than that which is within your head.

What I find bizarre and ironic is that the general idea behind pro-gay politics is that of freedom and acceptance - yet if you don't agree with them you are labelled as oppressive and hate-filled. How does that work? My opinion is generally that the extremes on either side are bad, but when the law starts to take stances like the one's listed above it worries me and make me angry.

I'd like to remind people to try and keep this civil - I will hand out smites to people who start flaming or flame baiting.

[Sneaky Git Nurgling Lover]

I find that ridiculous, it is someones belifes, not hatred, god tells us to accept everyone no matter if their sinners, sure, in the bible it says being gay is wrong so I think of it as wrong but I still accept them and treat them with the kidness as everyone else because then I would be sinning, hatred, and one sin is bad as another so see most of it isnt hatred, its just their belifes so why are they being accused of hating gays, because politics is getting real Sav'Y'xauk up.

Just kinda of a side note, I also hate how if you think being gay is wrong your accused of being a homophobe but phobe means "fear", I dont fear gays, I just dont think it should be but I still respect them like any other person even though alot of them are blindy accusing people who are having diffrent views of them, it is ridicoulous.

[enderwiggin]

I think you and I are in absolutely the same mental idea of what's being discussed.

I'm saddened by tha fact that the government continuously tries to make a bandage for a problem (the problem here being the friction between the two sides and the effect of others around it) that fits everyone. The problem in question needs minor surgery rather than a band-aid, some very slight re-wording (to the effect of civil unions) makes everyone happy. If your own church will not support it, I do know a few gay christians, why force them to change when it was your choice to flock to that religion?

I think the tolerance wagon has gone too far personally, I'm not going to start preaching hatred or spew vitriolics at any certain group (because it's the idea that clashes with me, not any certain group). I just feel that we should be able to sensibly discuss the item in question without being instantly labeled a bigot.

[enderwiggin]

Originally Posted by Rambo

I find that ridiculous, it is someones belifes, not hatred, god tells us to accept everyone no matter if their sinners, sure, in the bible it says being gay is wrong so I think of it as wrong but I still accept them and treat them with the kidness as everyone else because then I would be sinning, hatred, and one sin is bad as another so see most of it isnt hatred, its just their belifes so why are they being accused of hating gays, because politics is getting real Sav'Y'xauk up.

Just kinda of a side note, I also hate how if you think being gay is wrong your accused of being a homophobe but phobe means "fear", I dont fear gays, I just dont think it should be but I still respect them like any other person even though alot of them are blindy accusing people who are having diffrent views of them, it is ridicoulous.

God denounces homosexuality, not the person. If they practice homosexuality, then they are at fault by way of the Bible. That goes hand-in-had with another list of sins though. I also stress the fact at the abhorrent point of view towards prostitution in the Bible. Yet, through God the Bible shows that even a common street whore can recieve the blessings of Christ.

[khanaris]

I think a lot of it comes down to what you choose to do about your faith. I personally think Christians have a right to believe whatever they want to about homosexuality. Or anything else for that matter.

But I do not think they have the right to extend those beliefs to the public sector in any way whatsoever (including public education). They are religious beliefs. They can not be codified into law in a society that protects the separation of church and state. So I do think a lot of Christians deserve the flak they get for trying to uphold bans or push for defining amendments.

If it were up to me, the U.S. legal code would contain no mention of marriage whatsoever, with all of the privileges and responsibilities transferred over to the state of civil union (and legal guardianship, where applicable). Then people can make up their own minds. But Christians do not have any exclusive right to either the legal definition or the idea of marriage.

I see no difference between those who believe homosexuality is a sin and those that believe classifying it that way is a sin. That is just the nature of the debate. Calling it "hatred" goes too far. But you can not judge others for their life choices without being judged in return.

That said, I think the rights of private organizations need to be protected. Churches are tax exempt because they are often not able to pay what their property is worth. It ends up being a necessary nod by local government to organized religion. But apart from that, I think private organizations and individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions about this.

[Mavfreak]

Except, there really is no issue here to sensibly discuss. Or, at least, there shouldn't be. Marriage is a religious institution, true. However, religious institution does not mean Christian institution, and beyond that, it does not mean Baptist institution, or Protestant institution, or any other specifics. Just because your personal beliefs don't accept homosexuality doesn't mean other peoples beliefs don't as well. These people aren't barging into fundamentalist Baptist Churches in Texas and getting offended when the Preachers there won't agree to marry them. They have their own beliefs, and they only want to get married at Churches and by people that share in those beliefs.

The only thing that stands in the way of that is people who hold beliefs different than the homosexuals in question. These people believe that their religion is right, and the gays are wrong, which is understandable considering the faith involved in religious belief. However, they are also so arrogant as to assume they are superior to the homosexuals, and that because gays go against the Fundamentalist Christian teachings that they themselves (but not the gays in question) believe in, that the gays don't deserve the same rights.

One of the main parts of marriage in today's world (and in the United States) are the legal rights that come with it. It is important that any couple together for the long term (as in married) get these rights. Civil unions are an ideal compromise for this. However, it isn't good enough. Its not fair, not American to say to a homosexual couple, "Well, you guys love each other, but I believe something different than you, so you are second-class citizens." Its not right. It doesn't hurt you if they get married, it makes their life better, whats wrong with it?


EDIT: Khanaris said it first xD

[enderwiggin]

Originally Posted by Khanaris

I think a lot of it comes down to what you choose to do about your faith. I personally think Christians have a right to believe whatever they want to about homosexuality. Or anything else for that matter.

But I do not think they have the right to extend those beliefs to the public sector in any way whatsoever. They are religious beliefs. They can not be codified into law in a society that protects the separation of church and state. So I do think a lot of Christians deserve the flak they get for trying to uphold bans or push for defining amendments.

If it were up to me, the U.S. legal code would contain no mention of marriage whatsoever, with all of the privileges and responsibilities transferred over to the state of civil union (and legal guardianship, where applicable). Then people can make up their own minds. But Christians do not have any exclusive right to either the legal definition or the idea of marriage.

Abolish marriage and make it purely a civil union affair for everyone? I must say I love that idea. It could then still be as intimate as the religion dictates (in their own way), while still being acceptably to society as a whole... Khanaris, this time, you have utterly proved my previous statment absolutely wrong. This proposal would be the perfect panacea for the condition at hand. Good going :rockon:

:shifty:
The next time proving me wrong won't be so easy.

[DELPHEUS]

...world's going to hell in a handbasket.

This is "tolerance" to the extent of "intolerance." I mean, it's the church's choice, just like it's the gay's choice to call the church hateful.

[Guitardian]

To say that 'god denounces this or that' is a bit presumptuous in my opinion. Perhaps one book says that homosexual relations are a naughty thing, and another doesn't mention them at all. The use of 'faith' as any kind of logical excuse for legal action is a cop-out. Civil-Union, treated the same way legally, or 'partnership' - whatever it's just a bickering about semantics. As far as the persecution complex felt by gay couples (and by certain jews, ethnic minorities, nerds, genders, and so on) that is just ridiculous. I don't think it is okay for someone to be sued for refusing service to someone else, no matter how shallow their reasons are. Most bars have a big sign up that says 'WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE' to protect themselves from this very thing. Usually it has to do with not serving someone who is behaving unruly and intoxicated, but if it were some hick bar off in the sticks who didn't want to serve injuns or whatever, that is their right, their business, no matter how dumb it may be. Must all businesses now put up a sign like that to defend themselves from law suits? Can't it just go without saying?

I think victimization culture has grown out of proportion especially during the politically correct 90's, where everybody belongs to some group or another that is wrongfully persecuted. I guess I am the lucky winner... oh wait, no, being white, straight, male, and of sound mind has its drawbacks too... then throw in my immigration status... and all of a sudden I can sue someone for telling me I have bad fashion sense because I'm not gay, or some other equally ridiculous victim perception I can foist upon myself.

If they want to define marriage in terms of religion, then yes, according to most religions, marriage between same sex couples is wrong. If they want it to become a legal matter, then religious convictions play ABSOLUTELY no part in it. Ideally. Sign the paper, you are done, congratulations, have whatever ceremony you want but don't have it at a church that doesn't agree with homosexuality, and find a cameraman who doesn't have an issue with it, end of story. Call it a 'union' instead of a marriage to keep the word nitpickers happy.

I believe people who are 'homophobic' aren't scared of gay people like the word implies, but they are scared of a breakdown of the order that they have to take on faith in order for the world, and their particular religious dogma's take on it, to makes sense to them. Well sorry, but I highly doubt if there are many homophobic atheists, and Mr. Joe Bible Thumper, your narrow minded dogma is not my problem, but I don't think it's right for me to to sue you for it. You keep your nice little beliefs and I will continue to think rationally. That is where the homosexual community is going too far. Nobody should be the target of a law suit based on their beliefs, no matter how unjustifiable or irrational they are. Provided that nobody gets harmed, there is no cause for a monetary settlement over the incident. So find another photographer, ladies, it's that simple.

I'm pretty much with Ja'Khul here on the majority issue, and Khan-man with the marriage thing.

I think it should be said though: If a gay couple wants to be married with a religious institution that is against gay marriage, it's most definitely not the religious institutions fault.

Honestly, I also think that gays are getting too much power now that they aren't the under dog anymore and the legalization of gay marriage is quickly spreading, they seem to be accumulating more rights for themselves. I honestly think that with everyone, at least in America, if not everywhere else in the world too, say a simple sentence. "We're all equal, you deserve no more than the next guy, now **** off"