Is big business conservative? No.

If I were betting on it, I'd say that every traditional religious organization in this country is on track to lose its tax-exempt status in the next 10 to 20 years.

One can hope.

Well, I find that it's not that useful to talk in blanket terms of "conservatism" and "liberalism." As you point out, there are clear distinctions between corporate conservatism (low taxes, little regulation) and cultural conservatism (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc). So, yes, the DMN is conservative in many ways, even if they are, say, pro-immigration.

It seems to me as if the GOP is largely using cultural conservatives in order to get their votes; however, they have little intention on delivering what they want. Many southern whites (particularly) can be swayed on "cultural" issues, like racial equality or gay rights, to vote for Republicans, even when this is against their best economic interest. Corporatism is in no one's interest but the corporations'. In fact, many of these southern white conservatives will not support the aims of corporate interests. They're just as interested as us on the left in getting back to locally owned businesses, food, etc., and in reducing the stranglehold that our profit-driven culture has on society.

But because the GOP keeps talking about things they never intend to deliver on, they keep voting for them.

I was present as a witness for the Indiana Marriage Amendment (called to my surprise at the last minute; not generally a political activist over the last decade), and was disheartened to see how big business argued that the amendment would send a "message of intolerance," hurt "diversity," impede recruitment of "creative" workers, and sundry other current biz school nostrums.

It's not the first time Chamber-of-Commerce conservatism has gone over to the libertine side or at least taken to the sidelines when a cultural battle was on. The capitulation of our elected leaders to the wishes of big business flow from the reality that, to a substantial and increasing extent, the marketplace the only god a strong majority shares, and thus is now that only glue that holds our society together. Better bad glue than none.

The idea that big business is an enemy of traditional culture is one that has been present for a long time in American political and social thought. It was part of the South's critique of the North in the antebellum years, the Southern Agrarians revisited it in the 30s (along with their UK co-belligerents, the Distributists), and the Russell Kirk school of conservatism carried a slightly milder form of it into the 50s and beyond. Wendell Berry has been one of its primary spokemen in the current scene.

Thing is, most contemporary conservatives of the Limbaugh/Hannity school are mostly unfamiliar with this line of thought in traditional conservative theory, so that when you bring it up it sounds heretical to them. But it only sounds heretical because they don't know that that particular current has been there for many, many decades.

Do you really call someone who is pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigration "progressive"? Someone who calls themself "progressive" is just too cowardly to call themself "liberal".

Just trying to vary my usage here. I consider the terms "liberal" and "progressive" to be interchangeable.

Rod, believe it or not there are many Christians out here who would be very happy to see churches and religious organizations lose the tax exempt status that the government has provided. Our church renounced it a number of years ago, and we began paying property taxes and income taxes on our receipts. Our members also lost their charitable tax deduction.

An amazing thing happened when we did this, Rod. God provided. Not only did God provide more than enough money to pay the tax bill, He also provided more members and more opportunity to witness for His Gospel.

Tax deductability has been the trap the government has placed for churches. They become beholden to the IRS and lose their prophetic voice. Our congregation and minister is free to speak out on any issue he wants, whatever the Holy Spirit places upon his heart.

Rather than try to change the law, in essence bending the knee to man, place your trust in God and tell man that you will not bow to his law on this issue. God can provide, just as he provided the denari for Jesus and Peter to pay their temple tax.

It's liberating, Rod. Maybe your church should try it sometime. Trust God, and tell the government to get their noose off the throat of your minister.

Larry,

I just think your wrong re: sexuality. I know former practicing gays and lesbians, and I know of some of the contrary scientific literature, and so I suspect the causes of homosexual orientation are a complex mixture of nature and nurture factors. The word "Consensus" in science means that science doesn't have a definitive answer yet. But I'm less concerned about that right now. Rather, I'd speak to the following:

Even if homosexuality is genetic, and therefore supposedly(!) immutable, for us Christians -- thoughtful ones, anyway -- the basis for our position on homosexuality does not depend on whether it is natural for any given individual -- that is, whether it is inborn, innate, genetic or not. Rather, it's about same-sex genital activity, regardless of the roots of the desire, nature or nurture. That's why we'll say being a homosexual isn't inherently sinful, even if homosexuality is a fundamental disordering of sexuality (which does NOT mean the person him- or herself is disordered).

Just sayin'. Submitted for your consideration.

"I have to smile when I run into people in Dallas who complain that the Dallas Morning News is, editorially speaking, a conservative newspaper."

Just more evidence that "conservative" "liberal" etc are virtually meaningless without prefixes, adjectives and extensive footnotes.

Let's see, if I had to use just one word to accurately describe a paper that endorses GOP candidates almost exclusively, that's backed Bush's bone-headed war and his redaction museum, what would that word be?

CAll it a failure of imagination, but all I can come up with is "conservative." But you're right, the DMN is not uniquely conservative by any stretch.

Heck, I'd be hesitant to say that big business is even economically conservative in a very consistent way. I've rarely seen a large corporation reject a government subsidy, a trade barrier to squelch foreign competition, or a tax break for certain approved behaviors on principle. Big businesses are largely concerned with whatever government policies will improve their bottom-lines, and if they're big government policies, so be it.

Rod, I agree with you. As I said during the big dust-up over the Folsom Street festival, the corporate world benefits when society is fragmented into scads of separate identity groups. Then the retailers can sell each group its very own magazine, very own cable channel, very own "gear," etc. That's why, in the corporate boardrooms, where decisions are always driven by profit, the decision to back "diversity" is an easy one. When a multinational steps out and supports gay marriage, for example, it isn't being altruistic. No matter what the issue, they're always looking out for their (profit-driven) bottom line. That's why cultural conservatives need to hold business at arms' length. Its all an issue of what you want to "conserve": our Judeo-Christian culture, or the wealth of the corporate class. God or Mammon? One of the American political figures who understood this best was William Jennings Bryan, who melded a populist, anti-corporate stance with a strong defense of traditional values. See Michael Kazin's book A Godly Hero, which offers a fresh portrait of Bryan and contradicts the one-dimensional view put forth by Inherit the Wind, etc. (Interestingly, Kazin is neither a Christian nor a conservative. Just an honest historian).

Rob Grano: been to Free Republic lately? Will's definition of conservative isn't entirely rooted in fiction. Those sort of "morans" don't make up the whole conservative movement, in fact they're an increasingly shrill and irrelevant minority (thank God), but they do exist.

Ultimately, I think there will be some sort of First Amendment standard protecting religious groups from claims, but not all. The ministerial exception already protects religious employers, but correctly draws the line at firing janitors and office clerks for religious reasons.

No church is going to be forced to conduct gay marriages, but similarly if gay marriage is legal in the state, an employer is probably not going to be able to avoid offering benefits it already offers to other legally-married couples. I think a charity--and rightly show--that receives public dollars is not going to be able to justify denying a bed to a homeless gay youth or offering food to a destitute lesbian couple with children.

It is a leap that the courts are going to start issuing Bob Jones type rulings based on sexual orientation, especially since they don't even issue them based on gender.

there is a fundamental conflict between the now-consensus scientific/medical view that sexual orientation is an inborn tendency, no different than race; and a religious view (in many, not all congregations) that sexual orientation is a choice, and a sinful one at that.

1. There is no scientific/medical consensus at all on the origins of homosexuality.

2. The mainstream religious view is that homosexual acts are sinful. That view does NOT entail any belief that homosexual orientation is a choice, much less that the orientation is sinful per se. To a traditional christian, Muslim or Jew, homosexual inclinations are simply temptations to commit sin (i.e., a moral disorder). All people, however, experience temptations to commit all sorts of sins; from a moral standpoint all that matters is how one responds to those temptations.

Simon,

"1. There is no scientific/medical consensus at all on the origins of homosexuality."

Irrelevant to whether or not as citizens and employees gay people should be treated equally under the law. Companies should be obliged to extend the exact same benefits to the gay employees as they do to their heterosexual employees. And some of their gay employees will be legally married.

"2. The mainstream religious view is that homosexual acts are sinful."

So what? The non-mainstrem AND increasingly the "mainstream" (United Church anyone? Both the Liberal AND the Conservative branches of Judaism anyone?) religions do NOT view them as such. And, as I pointed out above, other "sinners" are given equal treatment before the laws so long as they're heterosexual "sinners". What has "sin" got to do with things like employment standards? This is a thread about BUSINESS, not religions. Why would one religion and its tenets trump another's???

"To a traditional christian, Muslim or Jew, homosexual inclinations are simply temptations to commit sin"

Once again - THAT'S IRRELEVENT! Why do "traditional" religions get preferential treatment over not-so traditional ones? The Unitarians support equality for gays. As do the Quakers. Do you have a point, or are you just bragging about how narrow some religions are?

"(i.e., a moral disorder)."

Judgemental much?

"All people, however, experience temptations to commit all sorts of sins; from a moral standpoint all that matters is how one responds to those temptations."

And ALL people are entitled to the same treatment regardless of "sin", moral "disorders", "temptations" or any other religious standard you would care to impose. Heck, we haven't even addressed the issue of atheist employees. Nor should we.

Rod,
I've thought about this post for a while, and I think it is one of the most important ones you've made in a long time. There are some very sobering concerns for Christians to think about here. I'm going to call this post to my friends attention.
On the philosophical orientation of big business, they are pragmatic and modernists. Modernists primarily believe in giving leeway to progress (whatever that is.) Modernists will except postmodern radical changes if they become accepted into the mainstream. Before that situation occurs, they will oppose postmodernist cultural reorientations. I thought the comments connecting cultural fragmentation to profit advantages for companies was interesting. I'd never thought of that before.
As we head into the full bloom of the postmodern encompassing, it's hard for me, a traditionalist, to be optimistic. We're going to have to learn to roll with the punches to make it to the last round. Maybe prayer will help.

Rod - Yes, this is another example of labels not being very helpful.

Larry wrote that "there is a fundamental conflict between the now-consensus scientific/medical view that sexual orientation is an inborn tendency, no different than race; and a religious view (in many, not all congregations) that sexual orientation is a choice, and a sinful one at that." Huh? Race is an inborn tendency? I would think it's more than a tendency. Sexual orientation isn't like race at all. It's clearly something that isn't like race, but more like the word you used, a tendency. That's the only way to explain people who switch their sexual orientation. It's not simply a choice, but it's not branded into your genes either.

or (3) because big business is conservative in the sense that it puts profits above all else. It seems to avoid government regulation from harms, but also avoid litigation from harms. It places shareholder loyalty above loyalty to employees, the environment, the general good.

Yes, in terms of issues like diversity, corporate America has been a driving force in the last 15 years. But it still resists socially liberal shareholder initiatives and is well behind the curve on issues like the environment and even international human rights.

By the way, there are at least three reasons why large corporations have embraced the cultural Left (on e.g., abortion, feminism, gay rights, etc.) with an enthusiasm matched only by their love for socialist Bauhaus architecture:

1. Big corporations are run by extremely wealthy people. On cultural issues, wealth = liberal. It's no coincidence that the Episcopal Church has embraced all kinds of culturally left positions, while the churches of the poor (e.g., Pentecostals) adamantly reject them.

2. Unmarried career women, who are among the most liberal demographic groups, have an outsized influence in large corporations. A man or a married woman with kids who antagonizes them on some sensitive culture issue knows he or she may face career death. Most prefer silence.

3. Fear of litigation! The vast majority of employment discrimination cases are baseless, but they can harm a company's reputation and cause a lot of inconvenience. Most companies try to insulate themselves from that sort of thing as much as possible by instituting aggressive "Diversity" programs. Individually, most people regard that stuff as silly, but it's the path of least resistance.

But thieves, adulterers, murderers and liars are al guaranteed to be treated equally under the law currently - IF they're heterosexual.

That's simply not true ex-Pentecostal. Homosexuals are just as free to marry as heterosexuals.

Daniel, I'm not so sure about that. A catholic bishop in Canda was brought up on hate crime charges for writing that divorce and alternative forms of marriage were destructive to family life. He didn't write an anti= gay insults. And in Sweden, a pastor was jailed for preaching a sermon in which he stated that it was a sinful lifestyle. Again, no anti=gay epithets. Now Sweden has a state sponsored church which I'm sure complicates matters and I am not sure how the current codes that passed the senate are different from canada's. So my concerns about these matters is not shameful in my view.
In fact Daniel, I think churches should get out of the wedding/marriage business completely. As a pastor who legally presides at weddings, I am an agent of the state which I think is a dangerous thing. It gives the state a toe hold to get involved with church teaching. So I think that marriages should be purely a civil matter. The pastor/Rabbi, whatever, should not be involved in those civil matters with the state at all. It potentially gives the state grounds to get involved with doctrinal issues its not qualified to deal with.
Get married in the court house, and then do a Christian affirmation of that union should the couple desire it. THat would cover both the legal/spiritual aspects of marriage without potentially harmful entaglements.

Eric,

"Race is an inborn tendency?"

I don't presume to speak for Larry (who seems to have disappeared), but my take on what he typed is that it is instead an innate, immutable characteristic.

"I would think it's more than a tendency."

And I would agree with you.

"Sexual orientation isn't like race at all."

It is if you look at it as part of our innate human makeup.

"That's the only way to explain people who switch their sexual orientation."

People DON'T "switch their sexual orientation". Some people discover it very late in life, having hidden or suppressed it due to societal pressures. Others finally simply finally find the courage to admit what they've been all along. Some people are able to switch the people with whom they will act on their innate attraction. Other people simply ARE attracted to both genders. Differentiating between the orientation and the act always helps clarify things.

"It's not simply a choice"

A BIG thank you for that.

"but it's not branded into your genes either."

A lot of people would disagree with you on that.

Cheers.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say a man, a Catholic, was married in the Catholic church, divorced civilly, and doesn't obtain an anullment. He remarries outside the church. He goes to work for a Catholic organization (school, hospital, whatever). The organization provides health insurance for spouses of employees. Can they deny coverage to his second wife on the grounds that they don't recognize that marriage as valid?

Simon hits paydirt!

recovering ex-pentecostal: They aren't "form letter screeds"; they're responses to what people say on these threads.

No, they're not. Your response was yet another pre-baked rant about "equality" and being "judgemental" that had nothing to do with what I wrote.

No one was arguing (here, at least) the merits of particular religious beliefs about homosexuality. I was simply countering Larry Parker's assertion that those beliefs are based on an assumption that orientation is a choice, and that they involve a belief that the orientation per se is sinful.

The cultural Left isn't really interested in "equality" and "rights" when it comes to marriage. If it did it would also be pushing for government recognition of marriage arrangements such polygamy, incestuous marriage, and complex marriages in which all members of a group are married to each other à la the Oneida perfectionists of the 19th century. Unlike homosexuality, the cultural Left doesn't dig these kinds of relationships and sexual orientations. They just aren't subversive in the right kinds of ways. So it isn't using marriage as a tool to gain recognition for them like it is with homosexuality.
I'm sure we traditionalists christians will see the state recognize "gay marriages" and the cultural Left (and yes corporations and the cultural left cultural elite will go along with this) will use this to punish those who refuse to stand up and applaud homosexuality as normal. At heart I believe the cultural Left is repressive and intolerant, so this is to be expected. We should prepare to loss some of our rights as has happened in Sweden and Canada if they get their way.
I don't care if traditionalist churches lose tax-exempt status because they refuse to recognize homosexual behavior as moral (by the way the cultural Left's obsession with people affirming the normalcy of homosexual behavior shows how insecure it is on this deep down). It would be horrible, however, if losing tax-exempt status hurt ministries that help the poor. I don't think the cultural Leftists would care a whole lot about that though. After all, the elite of the Democratic party treat the poor and minorities the same way the elite of the Republican party treats religious conservatives. It's all about lip service for two elites that are very similar in their values at the end of the day.

rr

Homophobia literally means "fear of sameness." The term is nonsensical and without any definite meaning. It's just a tool used to attack those who believe homosexual conduct is immoral. And a very flexible tool at that.

rr

quote: "It has nothing to do with the destructive practice of polygamy, incest or complex marriage."

Me: I absolutely does. If one recognizes homosexual relations as normal, there is no logical reason not to recognize these kinds of relationships as normal, or at the very least tolerate them. Some people are quiet happy in polygamous relationships and raise families that way. If you think gays should be able to marry, who are you to tell a man that he can't marry three women? In some cultures and religions polygamy is encouraged and women actually like it. Heck, I'd say there is a better case to legalize polygamy than there is gay marriage.

quote: "People who don't wish to approve of gay marriages certainly don't have to, but how does the state recognizing gay marriage infringe on rr's rights?"

Me: If it was just about health insurance, visitation rights, inheritance and the like I wouldn't be all that bothered by state "gay marriages," as absurd as they are morally. In fact, I don't really have a problem with civil unions since they don't have the same implication as the term marriage. But I see state-sanctioned gay marriage as a big step towards the state attempting to use said marriages to marginalize those who who disagree with the gay lifestyle. After all, it's already been done in Massachusetts with Catholic groups that refuse to support gay adoptions. I think we traditionalists christians would only be fooling ourselves if we didn't think that there is more of that to come.

rr

Simon wrote:
"Returning to the thread topic, the apparent assumption on the Left that Big Business is conservative has long been a source of amusement on the Right. I've always chalked it up to (1) some kind of residual Marxist thinking among Lefties that just can't grasp the concept of business as a leftist force, and (2) the fact that so many Lefties are academics and/or journalists and have little personal experience with corporate America."

Paranoia, an inability to see people as anything but categories, and lack of ability to think clearly are other likely reasons for this assumption.

To my mind, we have a Corporate Socialist state. There is a revolving door between government and big biz, one hand always greasing the other as the personnel move through.

The brou-haha over Canada and Sweden have never been convincing as threats to US religious freedoms. If the RepubliCrats (DemoBlicans?) haven't totally trashed the Constitution and Bill of Rights yet, we still have protections that neither of those countries are guaranteed. But I hope churches do give up their tax exempt status. Then we can see whom they really pay fealty to.

quote: "Would the phrase "between two and only two people" mean anything to you?!"

Me: No. Why draw the line at two people? Doesn't that seem arbitrary? What if after all three gay guys want to marry each other? Why allow two guys to marry and not three? What are you, polyphobic;)

I should clarify as well that while I've a social conservative I have a strong libertarian streak. In fact, I voted for the libertarians in 2004. I wouldn't have a problem with the state getting out of the marriage business altogether and just having civil unions, letting people and churches/religious bodies do whatever they want with marriage. But this whole "gay marriage" business is going to end up with the state telling people what to believe and punishing those that don't get in line with the cultural Left.

rr

I've always thought it fairly simple to argue that marriage--or civil unions--between same-sex couples would be the end of the line, not the beginning of all sorts of newfangled (and old-fangled) riffs on marriage. Sexual orientation is a very real thing; straight folks, ask yourselves if you could choose to be in a romantic and sexual relationship with a person of the same sex. Probably not without some very heavy pressure brought to bear on you, and even then it would feel--and for you, be--wrong.

The slippery slope examples usually brought out can be differentiated thusly:
Polygamy: no one is only attracted to multiple people at once.
Incest: no one is only attracted to family members
Pedophilia, bestiality: these are non-consensual and thus properly criminal
Pet rocks: just too weird to contemplate. :-)

I agree with rr: just have civil unions for all at the state level, and leave marriage ceremonies to religious bodies.
And re corporations--they do what's in the interest of business, period. Currently, it's in the interest of business to be "progressive" and offer partner benefits. If that hurt shareholder value in a major way, they wouldn't do it. Same with the "greening" many of them are doing. Corporations, unlike people, have one purpose: to make money. Unlike us, they are not ensouled at any stage of development.

What would be an example of people oriented toward polygamous or incestuous relationships? I've never met anyone with such an orientation. People may wish to express their heterosexual/homosexual orientation with multiple people or family members, but that's not the same as _only_ being drawn romantically and sexually to groups of two or more, or to members of one's family. To put it personally, I know about myself that I only fall in love with women (thank God, one in particular). I don't know anyone who only falls in love with multiple people, or with relatives.

Right you are, Simon. Santorum was accused of morally equating homosexuality with pederasty and bestiality, which was not what he was doing. His point was exactly what you said it was, but his argument was too nuanced for the sound-bite-driven knuckleheads in the media to grasp.

But when you go through the courts and try to make same-sex marriage a constitutional right, as its advocates have done, then you're stuck wit the logical consequences of your decision. If every adult person has a "right" to follow his or her own bliss on matters of marriage and sexuality, then there's no logical basis for the judiciary to draw a line against polygamy, bestiality, or incest.

Great point, Simon. Well said.

"I wouldn't have a problem with the state getting out of the marriage business altogether and just having civil unions, letting people and churches/religious bodies do whatever they want with marriage."

Except I'm pretty sure the vast majority of heterosexuals would NOT agree to having their "marriages" downgraded to mere "civil unions". And as we've seen in NJ, civil unions mean diddely squat when it comes to actually receivng the legal benefits of such, especialy if you are gay.

"But this whole gay marriage business is going to end up with the state telling people what to believe"

Hardly. The RRR will still believe gays are sinful and going to he11. The difference is only that their "beliefs" won't matter in a court of law or in corporate policy making - as it should be. You try to make it sound as if everyone would be required to have a same-sex marriage themself - totally absurd.

"I don't have a problem with gays being left alone to live their lives however they want."

Of course you have a problem. Many of us want to get married. That is how we want to live our lives. Some of us already are. And it seems to upset you to no end.

"They can do whatever they want in their bedroom and with their own property and such"

If only we could. Until our marriages are recognized as such, we will always have the problem of having to go to court to protect our property and such from predatory 'blood relatives' and States which refuse to recognize our relationships legally.

"just don't tell me what to say and believe about it."

How many times must you be told that you can "believe" what you want? The problem is that the right to "believe what you want" must be reciprocal, and that is what you refuse to even consider or allow.

"The term "marriage" conotes legitimacy and religion"

It absolutely does NOT connote "religion" for a whole panoply of people. And you ignore that many gay people ARE being married in their faiths.

"so it would be best for the state to just get out of the marriage business."

Once again, how many str8s would accept the downgrade to "civil unions"? I know I wouldn't accept it, since I'm already legally married. You are corect, of course, that if the State got out of the marriage business and only performed civil unions, then all citizens would be treated equally before the law. But it doesn't resolve your problem - that those couples wishing to be "married" by their Churches will do so, and they happen to include many GAY couples, So it STILL won't preculde us from the institution of marriage.

"In fact, one could make the case that since marriage is so closely associated with religion"

One would be considered a fool if one did. Guess there are no atheists in America, eh? Certainly not any "married" ones.

I love it when you people continue to try to conflate same-sex marriages with the "polygamy, bestiality, or incest" triumvirate. I'm surprised to see that necrophilia isn't on the list too. Thinking people recognize exactly what you are attempting to do - equate our loving, committed, consenting relationships with the "ick factor".

"Santorum was accused of morally equating homosexuality with pederasty and bestiality, which was not what he was doing."

He was doing precisely that. And so are you folk. Rather unsuccessfully, I might add. Not too many are buying it.

And having countered ALL of your "arguments", I'm still not sure what ANY of it has to do with corporate employment policies.

quote: "Hardly. The RRR will still believe gays are sinful and going to he11. The difference is only that their "beliefs" won't matter in a court of law or in corporate policy making - as it should be. You try to make it sound as if everyone would be required to have a same-sex marriage themself - totally absurd."

Me: No, I haven't suggested in the slightest that everyone would be required to have same-sex marriage themselves. What I have argued, however, is that if and when the state recognizes same-sex marriages the next step for the cultural Left will be to use the state and gay marriage as a tool to 1) further legitimize homosexual behavior as moral 2) to marginalize or even take away rights from those who disagree and equate them to people like Bob Jones with race.
That in part is what this whole discussion about churches and religious organizations eventually losing tax-exempt status for their views on homosexuality is all about. I can also imagine people losing their jobs and being treated like racists for disapproving homosexual behavior as well. You may say this won't happen, but I guarantee that some gay rights activists will push for it. And I for one don't trust the cultural Left one bit with my civil liberties.

quote: "Of course you have a problem. Many of us want to get married. That is how we want to live our lives. Some of us already are. And it seems to upset you to no end."

Me: I don't have a problem with it (especially the property and insurance rights aspects) if you don't force me to recognize said relationships as moral or valid. But I think that is precisely the whole point of drive for gay marriage.

quote: "How many times must you be told that you can "believe" what you want? The problem is that the right to "believe what you want" must be reciprocal, and that is what you refuse to even consider or allow."

Me: So, there won't be any kind of discrimination for those who believe homosexual behavior is immoral. What about Catholic groups in Massachusetts with adoption? What about what has gone on in Canada and Sweden? Granted, it isn't mass repression, but it is being treated unfairly for ones religious beliefs.

quote: "It absolutely does NOT connote "religion" for a whole panoply of people. And you ignore that many gay people ARE being married in their faiths."

Me: O.k., point well taken. It isn't seen as religious by atheist. But nonetheless "marriage" does equal "recognized as legitimate." I am more for civil unions because the term is more neutral morally speaking. And I wouldn't mind my marriage being "downgraded" to a civil union by the state as long as it didn't complicate any of the legal arrangements my wife and I have together.
Of course, gays are being "married" in other faiths. Religious groups that do so are in the minority (and in my view ridiculous and heretical). If they want to call it "marriage," fine. Just don't expect my recognition.

quote: "I love it when you people continue to try to conflate same-sex marriages with the "polygamy, bestiality, or incest" triumvirate. I'm surprised to see that necrophilia isn't on the list too. Thinking people recognize exactly what you are attempting to do - equate our loving, committed, consenting relationships with the "ick factor"."

Me: Well, I love it that you people can't give any logical reason for approving of homosexual unions and not approving and legally recognizing polygamy. After all, there are polygamists in Utah and elsewhere that have loving, committed, consenting relationships too. It's the same standard you are using to justify gay relationships. And in my view polygamy is a lot less "icky" than anal sex between two men. But why should my or anyone else's view on what is "icky" or not matter for all this?
Face it, if you support state-sanctioned gay marriages because gays have loving, committed, consenting relationships but don't support state-sanctioned polygamous relationships (and oh, yes, they are out there-men having more than one wife), then you are a hypocrite and you clearly aren't interested in equal rights. In fact, you are trampling on the rights of polygamists.

rr

rr

Of course there is, because it's not about "following his or her own bliss" but recognizing consensual, adult relationships between two people which is the very basis of marriage law in the U.S.

Actually, consensual adult relationships between one man and one woman have been the very basis of marriage law in the U.S. If the sex difference suddenly ceases to matter, why can't the limitation of the number to two also cease to matter?

The slippery slope arguments are fun to have, but they don't hold up under more rigorous analysis. And how much civil rights are you willing to deny because of the slippery slope. There were similar slippery slope arguments when anti-miscegination laws were struck down, but should we have listened to the hysterics then too?

There's nothing in the least bit rigorous about non-originalist analysis when it comes to the Constitution.

Slippery slope arguments are valid in jurisprudential analysis, because in establishing precedent the "result" of a particular case is far less important than the reasoning. With legislation, by contrast, a legislature's reasons for enacting a particular law are completely irrelevant (and usually cannot even be known).

Santorum was exactly right that the judicial reasoning behind Lawrence v. Texas left the courts with no basis whatsoever to deny legal protection to polyamorous or incestuous relationships. The only thing that now prevents the creation of such bogus "rights" is the fact that the 5 liberal/libertarian justices don't happen to favor those things as a matter of public policy -- which illustrates nicely the profound corruption and dishonesty of their jurisprudence.

quote: "Not fighting for the rights of far-right advocates of oppressive polygamous relationships isn't a responsibility of the gay civil rights movement."

Me: If gay rights activists view loving, committed, consenting, polygamous relationships (not all polygamists are fundamentalist Mormons) as "oppressive" then they blatantly hypocritically. After all, "loving, committed, consensual adult relations" are the exact standard used to justify gay marriage. It's not about having things in common with polygamists or other alternate marriage arrangements to the traditional one man, one woman marriage. It's about the claim gay rights activists have to be advancing equal rights. If they won't fight for polygamy that claim is bogus. It means they aren't about equality, but about rights for me, but not for thee.

rr

"Not fighting for the rights of far-right advocates of oppressive polygamous relationships isn't a responsibility of the gay civil rights movement."

Let us hope they take the same tack with far-left advocates of oppressive pedophilic relationships, i.e., NAMBLA.

'I love it when you people continue to try to conflate same-sex marriages with the "polygamy, bestiality, or incest" triumvirate. I'm surprised to see that necrophilia isn't on the list too. Thinking people recognize exactly what you are attempting to do - equate our loving, committed, consenting relationships with the "ick factor".'

Ok, I hereby add necrophilia to the list. After all, consent isn't needed and no one gets hurt, do they? The 'ick' factor's there already; what 'you people' are trying to do is make us suppress it, like Linda Lovelace in "Deep Throat" suppressing her gag reflex.

"I can also imagine people losing their jobs and being treated like racists for disapproving homosexual behavior as well. You may say this won't happen, but I guarantee that some gay rights activists will push for it. And I for one don't trust the cultural Left one bit with my civil liberties."

Agreed, rr. Someone has referred to this type or thing as "soft totalitarianism," and I can see it coming. Can't have anyone disagreeing with 'diversity and tolerance,' can we?

"I'm still not sure what ANY of it has to do with corporate employment policies."

It's because what can be seen happening in the corporate world may well become standard in the society at large as well. I see it in the company where I work. Don't wanna see it the culture and government too.

Me: I know that. But I and many others DON'T. What you don't get is that many of us who DON'T believe gay rights activists are out to marginalize us using gay marriage as a tool to do so.

quote: "My question remains, what has morality to do with corporate employment policies? Or, more specifically, why does your interpretation of morality take sway over that of others?"

Me: It doesn't. But it will have a big impact if those who disagreed with gay marriage face job discrimination (basically are treated like openly racist people are today) because of our beliefs that homosexual sex is immoral.

quote: "But of course, THIS discussion is NOT "about churches and religious organizations" - it is about the CORPORATE world being conservative or not. That is what I keep reminding you of, yet you continue to bring it back to churches and religious organizations."

Me: It is most certainly part of this discussion. See Rod's original post that mentioned churches losing tax-exempt status as well as other people's remarks on it.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence regarding our property and insurance rights aspects, which would flow naturally if we were married. However, I never have and I never will "force" you to recognize my marriage as moral. I know you never will. You DO have to accept it as valid, (since it is) just as I must accept yours as valid, even if I might think it immoral (which, of course, I don't, but what I think does not affect your marriage's validity). Mine is a perfectly legal marriage, whether you "accept" it or "agree with" it or not.

Me: It would also flow naturally if you had a civil union. And no, a gay marriage is not valid. It is an absurdity, even if it is legal. Legality doesn't mean morality or validity.

quote: "No there won't be, so long as you threaten no harm to those who believe otherwise."

Me: I don't believe this for a minute.

What about them? They are the ones trying to impose their beliefs on others who do not believe likewise.

Me: No they aren't. They were discriminated against and not allowed to help with adoptions because of their religious views on homosexuality. And if gay marriage becomes the law nationwide in the USA, that's just the beginning.

"What about what has gone on in Canada and Sweden?"

Me: A pastor has gone to jail in Sweden for preaching that homosexual behavior is immoral. Not for advocating violence or anything like that, just saying it is immoral. Do you see the problem here? Do you? That's a blatant violation of civil liberties and what we could well see in future here in the USA with this whole gay marriage business.

quote: You mean like the unfair treatment of gay people and our supporters who's religious beliefs include marriage? Cry me a river.

Me: Sorry, but I'd be foolish not to be concerned with the future of my civil liberties. Again, if I thought "gay marriage" was just about property and insurance rights it wouldn't bother me. But that isn't the issue.

quote: "That would be because they ARE legitimate."

Me: Maybe before the law. Morally they are a farce.

quote: "Being in the majority does not automatically mean being right."

Me: Neither does being a minority with wealthy and powerful friends in the political and corporate elite.

quote: "You don't get it, rr. We don't want YOUR recognition. Gays want the STATE to recognize our marriages that, as you finally admit, ARE performed within OUR faiths exactly as it recognizes YOUR marriages that are performed within your faith. And we want our civil marriages performed outside of religion to likewise be recognized by the STATE. Your own person opinion does not matter in the grand scheme of things in the equal treatment of all citizens before the law."

Me: You most certainly do want our recognition. Gay rights activists crave our recognition and go ape when people dare tell the truth and say that homosexual behavior is immoral, perverse, and disgusting. They label this kind of speech "homophobia" and compare those who oppose them and things like gay marriage to racists. It doesn't take a whole lot of looking around in this country to figure that out.

quote: "But, of course, we HAVE done just that. You either missed it or ignored it. Polygamy promotes inequality. Same-sex marriages do not. There, that was easy. The ones you cite from Utah lack committment. One man can't decide between 14 wives, can't make the commitment. Plus, of course, the State does not recognize any "wife" after the first one. No medical recognition as a "spouse", no inheritance recognition as a "spouse", etc."

Me: Ex, this is completely laughable. Polygamy between loving, committed, consenting adults is no more "unequal" than "gay marriage."
There are relationships like this in Utah that DO match this description since not all polygamist marriages involve minors. I once saw a documentary about a polygamist family in Salt Lake City that involved three adult women and one man. The women loved the arrangement because they shared childcare and housework duties and could pool their incomes. So if the state recognizes two men marrying, why shouldn't it recognize a may with several wives?
Sorry, but you guys have yet to give a reason for banning polygamy besides implying that you find it distasteful and it isn't ideologically kosher to you because it somehow promotes "inequality" (which is not always the case, and is irrelevant anyway since the purpose of marriage contracts isn't to promote equality).

rr

quote: "There's clearly an argument for polygamy. They are as oppressive to women as traditional marriage was into the early 1900s. We have now, however, a different standard for marriage that has moved it beyond the "women are chattle" stage and therefore equality does matter. As a contract, marriage is about equity and equity is more difficult with more than two parties, especially when one party has disproportionate power over the other multiple parties."

Me: It's highly questionable that traditional marriage was oppressive in the early 1900s, especially to talk about a "women as chattel" stage. After all, wives weren't exactly bought and sold at auctions like slaves were. Sorry, but the whole feminist narrative about marriage being oppressive is highly exaggerated, and it's probably insulting to many African-Americans (whose ancestors were chattel slaves) to make such a ludicrous comparison.
Also, who ever said marriage was about "equity" (whatever that might mean)? It's a partnership to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an equal one, nor do many people want it to be so (including hen-pecked husbands). If "equity" is the goal of marriage, then all kinds of marriage relationships should be broken up since one partner in a marriage often is the more dominate one. Finally, polygamy may be more complicated as a contract (just as a business partnership with multiple partners is), but that doesn't mean anything with regard to banning it.
I'm beginning to suspect that you folks on the left are so interesting in "equality" in marriage because you're channeling Marx through feminism with this whole issue.

rr

"It's highly questionable that traditional marriage was oppressive in the early 1900s, especially to talk about a "women as chattel" stage. After all, wives weren't exactly bought and sold at auctions like slaves were. Sorry, but the whole feminist narrative about marriage being oppressive is highly exaggerated, and it's probably insulting to many African-Americans (whose ancestors were chattel slaves) to make such a ludicrous comparison."

Women weren't allowed to own property. In wealthy families, the daughter's marriage was viewed primarily as a means of making sure she was taken care of and so that the money could transfer to the man. In poorer families, the marriage transaction was just as financial, passing along the burdens of women from father to husband. She couldn't work outside the home, couldn't own property, couldn't enter into legal contracts. Her sole purpose was to keep house and have children--or supervise those who did it--and have no legal rights that weren't built on a relationship with men. She couldn't get a divorce, even if her husband beat her, and if she did try to end the marriage she would end up destitute since the law had not yet created a means for her to get assets from the marriage.

Sounds pretty oppressive to me, but I guess you have lower standards for what is oppressive since you also find polygamy to be an attractive construct for women.

Just wanted to chime in and say that the "institution" of marriage is in fact a Sacrament, not a man made thing. Marriage was instituted by God, between a man and a woman. This, no matter how much society today would like to, can NOT be changed.

That being said, if homosexuals feel the need to be "protected" under the law to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples do, then go for that separate legislation because what you have is not a marriage.

Also, I would like to say, for the record, that practicing homosexuality is not a morally correct choice according to God. As the Catholic Church states, being a homosexual is not the sin, acting on those feelings is. We all have our crosses, but we are not supposed to act on them.

Mr. Dreher- You are a refreshing voice in the world of politics. I have told many people about your book and your views. Please keep up the good work!