Tolerance, gay marriage, religious liberty

I think you're right on. And this is another issue I vote GOP, as slimy as many find GOPers: issues of religious liberty and free speech.

I find it especially rich that in your linked article re; the situation in Boston one of the fathers complained about "losing business" because of his stance. Wouldn't that be capitalism in action? You want to be the face opposing gays in Massachussetts, don't own your own business that people can boycott. After all, didn't the religious right try to do the same thing to Disney after they had a Gay family week? Either economic means to express your disapproval are legit or their not. Which is it?

The way to deal with a gag order is to ignore and force the issue into Federal Court when the idiot ward-heeler state judge tries to enforce it.

They always lose.

Rod, I think you're confusing separate issues here, and that is making you see problems that are unlikely to exist.

Going in no particular order:
Boy Scouts--no one is taking away their religious freedom. They are being denied local government largesse that they had no right to anyway--it is gifts of the local government. Those local govenrments that are withdrawing support are doing so because the democratically elected officials are choosing to do so and the voters approve (that's certainly the case in my native Philadelphia, which is the largest case of it I think). This has nothing to do with gay marriage or religious freedom--so long as local governments can dump largesse on private organizations (which I don't like them doing, but it is common in America), popular organizations will get the dough and unpopular ones won't. That's all that's going on with the Boy Scouts.

Regarding the case in Massachusetts, it is a problem with Mass.' stupid wiretap law--you can't record ANYONE without their consent--people who record police misconduct in Mass. get convicted of wiretap violations all the time. That is a really stupid law that should not exist to begin with, but its existence did not come about because of gay marriage or the gay rights movement at all--its just a stupid, unfair law. Many states have similar stupid wiretap laws, which all came about in the 60's after panics about wiretaps and recorded conversations, and they all need to go, but they get abused far more often by police officers who use them to arrest anyone who records them abusing someone else. Because these guys recorded the proceedings at that meeting without telling EVERY SINGLE PERSON there and getting their consent, they broke the stupid law. Any recording of even the most public event without consent of the speaker is just as illegal. This is obviously a problem, but not one that has anything to do with gay rights.

The only decent cases of religious impact you mention have all their genesis in anti-discrimination laws, which can be problematic when applied to private parties, I agree. BUT, they were passed democratically, including the parts about sexual-orientation discrimination.

In other words, your problem appears to be that majorities in certain states/communities are pro-gay, and that it sucks to be in the minority sometimes. Sorry, but my only response to that is "cry me a f---ing river."

P.S. you have done well in cherry-picking some stupid statements from gay-rights supporters who obviously know nothing about the First Amendment, but just because a political movement has some morons does not mean that the movement is wrong, and just because somebody wants speech restricted does not mean it will happen. It is a sad fact that on every side of every debate in this country, there are people who want to restrict their opponents speech and not respect their freedom. The fact that the gay-rights movement has some of the same morons as every other political group only serves to further demonstrate the prevalence of idiocy in humanity.

p.p.s.
to clarify my earlier comment-- my "cry me a river" comment related to Rod's not being happy that people disagree with him. I agree that some anti-discrimination laws go to far in respect to private persons in general (as I intimated in the post), but Rod has no right to have everyone agree with him, and if society wishes to ostracize those who disapprove of homosexuality, my response is as above (regarding lacrimations and flowing bodies of water).

Just wanted to clarify, and my apologies for being unclear at first.

So if a Catholic school employs a woman who's been divorced and remarried, with the first marriage not annulled, can they refuse to extend health insurance to her current husband because they don't consider the couple married? Who here would defend that?

I would hope that they wouldn't hire her in the first place, or let her go if the remarriage is during her employment. Being a "practicing Catholic" should be part of the employment agreement. Got a problem with that?

What if she doesn't attend mass on Sunday?

What if she's not baptized?

Or does everyone have a right to teach at a Catholic school?

"So if a Catholic school employs a woman who's been divorced and remarried, with the first marriage not annulled, can they refuse to extend health insurance to her current husband because they don't consider the couple married? Who here would defend that?"

Geez, that has the makings of a great bar exam question. Of course, the real question would be whether the school has the right NOT to employ her in the first place, for that reason and that reason alone. And, at least under current law, so far as I know they do. OTOH, the Catholic school that fired a woman teacher for getting raped and not aborting the resulting pregnancy got a pass for that too.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And then the lid will come off.

Naw, not the lid. The gloves. And it's about time.

I confess these sorts of posts using reason and logic to make culture-war arguements make me yawn. Nobody is listening! It's a war, and it's been one for nearly twenty years for goodness sakes. Politics is power. They really are out to get you; why keep acting surprised?

Indeed, this whole thing will end very badly:

1985: 1/4 of voters were likely to flip political parties
2008: 1/10

1975: 35% of the House memebers were moderates
2005: 8%

1976: 38% of counties had a 20% partisan spread
2004: 60% of counties had landslide elections

Less than 25% of Americans have regular political discussions with people they disagree with (the more educated, the less talk...folk with graduate degrees are the most homogenous)

(Source: latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez26-2008may26,0,4016221.column)

Make no mistake: as America cloisters in like-minded blue and red enclaves, bitter anger at the other side brews. So yes, it's already a war. Gay marriage is merely a nicely placed below-the-belt kick. Hey, gotta give credit where credit is due, that was a nice one!

But it's just the beginning. Based on demographics, we should see liberals dominating politically for at least another decade or two, and they will dance around their bloody victims with glee. So conservatives, expect no quarter, quit whining, and prepare to fight another day. Hello, Benedict!

Sounds scary, but, worst-case scenarios rarely occur, let's hope.

If and when same-sex marriage is declared a constitutional right, the effect will be to state that any Roman Catholic who actually accepts and believes in the Church's teachings on the intrinsically disordered and sinful nature of homosexual acts is by definition a bigot; similarly, any other Christian or non-Christian whose sincere religious beliefs teach likewise is also a bigot. In order to change the definition of marriage in such a way that it includes same-sex couples many religions must be redefined as bigotry, and believers as bigots.

The city of Philadelphia has decided that all Boy Scouts are bigots, and thus that they will no longer be charged a nominal rent to use city property they've used for years. The Boy Scouts are suing, not only because the city of Philadelphia lets other groups use the properties without scrutinizing their membership requirements but also because the proposed new rent charge is significantly more than similar properties charge for *commercial* rent. But if the definition of a bigot is "Anyone who holds the sincere religious belief that homosexual acts are gravely sinful," then the city of Philadelphia is only doing what it would do if any other "bigoted" non-profit group wanted to have access to city buildings at the usually-reduced rate; in fact, since the Boy Scouts are bigots, why would anybody *not* want to see them hounded out of existence? And if all Catholics (except those who dissent from their Church's teachings in their eagerness to be accepted by the rest of liberal society) are *by definition* bigots, who would want to hire one, or associate with one, or otherwise support any of them?

Shouldn't all of society (except for us Catholics and those who agree with us) be unified in their opposition to our so-called bigotry? Shouldn't all of you be *trying* to silence us, marginalize us, and otherwise make it as hard as possible for us to spread our "bigotry" around? Shouldn't you treat us like you would treat a Ku Klux Klan member, or a white supremacist? Aren't we just as "evil" from your way of looking at and thinking about things?

>When was the last time conservatives saw gay people beating straight people to death?

How about Ernst Roehm?

"'Bloody victims'? When was the last time conservatives saw gay people beating straight people to death? Overwrought metaphor is the last refuge of someone who wants to feel persecuted but can't actually find a boo-boo to show." sigaliris

A snipit from http://www.prairieghosts.com/gacy.html:

Johnny Butkovich, 17, began doing remodeling work for Gacy’s company in an effort to raise money for his racing car. He enjoyed the position, it paid well, and he maintained a good working relationship with Gacy until one pay period when Gacy refused to pay Johnny for two weeks of work. This was something that Gacy often did in order to save money. Angered that Gacy had withheld his pay, Johnny went over to his employer’s house with two friends to collect what was rightfully his. When he confronted him, Gacy refused to pay and a loud argument erupted. Finally, he realized there was little that he could do and Johnny and his friends left. Butkovich dropped off his friends at home and drove off -- never to be seen again.

Michael Bonnin, 17, enjoyed working with his hands, especially carpentry and woodworking, and often had several different projects going at the same time. In June 1976, he had almost completed restoring an antique jukebox -- but the job was never finished. When on his way to catch a train to meet his stepfather’s brother, he vanished.

Billy Carroll, 16, was a long time troublemaker who had first been in trouble with the authorities at the age of 9. Two years later, he was caught with a gun and he spent most of his life on the streets of Chicago, making money by arranging meetings between teenaged boys and adult men for a commission. Although he came from a very different background that Michael Bonnin and Johnny Butkovich, they all three had one thing in common -- John Wayne Gacy. Like the others Carroll also disappeared suddenly. He left home on June 13, 1976 and was never seen alive again.

Gregory Godzik, 17, started working for PDM Contractors in order to finance parts for his 1966 Pontiac. He considered it an eyesore but it was a consuming hobby for him. The work that he did for Gacy paid well and he liked it a lot. On December 12, 1976, Gregory dropped his date, a girl he had had a crush on for awhile, at her house and drove off towards home. The following day, the police found Gregory’s Pontiac but the boy was missing.

On January 20, 1977, John Szyc, 19, also vanished. He had driven off in his 1971 Plymouth Satellite and was never seen alive again. Interestingly, a short time after Szyc disappeared, another teenager was picked up by police in a 1971 Plymouth Satellite while trying to leave a gas station without paying. The boy said that the man he lived with could explain the situation -- John Wayne Gacy. He told the officers that John Szyc had sold him the car some time earlier. The police never checked the title, which had been signed 18 days after John’s disappearance. Szyc had not worked for PDM Contractors but he was acquainted with Gregory Godzik, Johnny Butkovich and fatally, John Wayne Gacy.

On September 15, 1977, Robert Gilroy, 18, also disappeared. Gilroy was an avid outdoorsman and on that date, was supposed to catch a bus to meet friends for horseback riding. When he never showed up, his father, a Chicago police sergeant, immediately began searching for the boy. A full scale investigation was launched but Robert was nowhere to be found.

More than a year later, another young man named Robert Piest would vanish as well. The investigation into his disappearance would lead not only to the discovery of his body but the bodies of Butkovich, Bonnin, Carroll, Szyc, Gilroy and 27 other young men who suffered similar fates. [End]

Are we supposed to believe Gacy was the only violent gay in history, sig? And how many thousands of non-gays die horribly of AIDS originally spread by gays?

in fact, since the Boy Scouts are bigots, why would anybody *not* want to see them hounded out of existence? And if all Catholics (except those who dissent from their Church's teachings in their eagerness to be accepted by the rest of liberal society) are *by definition* bigots, who would want to hire one, or associate with one, or otherwise support any of them?

Libertarians

Shouldn't all of society (except for us Catholics and those who agree with us) be unified in their opposition to our so-called bigotry? Shouldn't all of you be *trying* to silence us, marginalize us, and otherwise make it as hard as possible for us to spread our "bigotry" around? Shouldn't you treat us like you would treat a Ku Klux Klan member, or a white supremacist? Aren't we just as "evil" from your way of looking at and thinking about things?
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 27, 2008 9:43 PM

Here's how I treat KKK-ers and white supremacists - I generally ignore them. I save the label "evil" for things that aren't simply differences of opinion.

You might not get to be a martyr.

All of this is alleviated if we have true separation of church and state. Make all marriages civil unions/marriages. Everyone then obtains the civil advantages from such a relationship. Let churches then hold religious marriages based on whatever criteria they choose. The state should not be giving the sacrament of marriage anymore than it should be giving communion.

When Falwell, Dobson et. al. decided to move religion into politics it became inevitable that politics would push back into religion.

Steve

">When was the last time conservatives saw gay people beating straight people to death?

How about Ernst Roehm?"

LOL! Trying to get one in under the Godwin Radar! Besides, I think Roehm was shot.

Erin, PA's demographic for Catholics is 29%, well above the national figure. The bulk of them are here in the southeast around Philadelphia. I suggest you are very wrong in your characterization of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia has a program whereby a non-profit foots the bill for the maintenance of one of the several city-owned historic mansions in and near Fairmount Park. $1 per year in exchange for signing a contract to maintain the building according to city standards and to comply with all city ordinances concerning access.

As for the $200,000 per year controversy, I respectfully suggest that you are prejudging the claims being made. There are a few thousand condo, apartment and house units within a mile of the building in question with sale prices that start around $1.5 million (and I think that may be low). Even if it's true that $200,000 per year is double the highest commercial rate, it is a moot point because the Cradle of Liberty council could not likely come up with $100,000 per year, even it it chose to rent such a space.

The gay discrimination is the catalyst, and I am very upset at the rhetoric Rod quotes from gay reps and activists. I must also point out that for that building, $1 per year "rent" is an example of egregious entitlement attitude at the public expense. I would have asked the Boy Scouts to leave well before this year simply on the fact that the city could generate quite alot of revenue from the building. My city cannot afford that sort of charity when it's streets are going unrepaired.

If the Boy Scouts asked, I have little doubt that some private organization would come through for them with, if not as cheap, some affordable alternative.

"You know, Cleveland, if you're going to use serial killers who were gay as evidence of the vileness of homosexuals, you're also going to have to admit into evidence the far, far greater numbers of heterosexual male serial killers--especially heterosexual male killers who targeted women and girls--and contemplate whether they are a valid argument for the vileness of heterosexual men. Do you really want to go there?"

I don't think he was using it as evidence of the vileness of homosexuals. He was merely pointing out the absurdity of claiming that homosexuals have never killed a straight person. Of course, one would also expect serial killers to be mostly heterosexual, given that heterosexuals are >90% of the population, but hey, lets not nitpick - math is hard!

Connie: So if a Catholic school employs a woman who's been divorced and remarried, with the first marriage not annulled, can they refuse to extend health insurance to her current husband because they don't consider the couple married? Who here would defend that?

That would make the front page of the local newspaper, for sure. Because a second marriage of that type is *just as* much of a "sham marriage" as a gay one, from that POV.

But no one wants to answer the question, it seems - *how much abrogation of religious freedom have Catholics and non-divorce-recognizing Protestants been subjected to, since the advent of liberalized divorce laws?*

Agreed, Grigory--let's not nitpick. Using one notorious killer to prove that heterosexuals are victimized is equally as absurd as it would be to use ten times as many notorious killers to prove that heterosexuals are dangerous. When Cleveland starts using math, I'll be happy to respond in kind. Don't let math anxiety get you down--it actually isn't that hard. ; )

Erin, your disdainful comments about Philadelphia Catholics are amusing to me, because we came here from Texas and found the local Catholic churches comparatively very conservative. I don't think anyone would characterize Cardinal Rigali as a paragon of liberalism. I guess it all depends on which part of the elephant you're looking at.

Haven't we beat this horse to death yet? There's no discussion, just acrimony. Let's all just agree to disagree, vote your particular view, and call it a day.

Chris

Sig, as I mentioned, it was 19 years ago that I lived in that area. If things have improved I'm glad to hear it.

Chris, "Let's all just agree to disagree, vote your particular view, and call it a day," is a pretty good epitaph for Western Civilization. Not much left worth preserving, is there?

Franklin, my use of "bigot" is my acceptance of the inevitable. A handful of judges on the Supreme Court are most likely going to make sure I wear that label for the rest of my life, so I might as well start using it to refer to myself and my fellow Catholic bigots now. It'll be easier to get used to it that way.

Franklin, my use of "bigot" is my acceptance of the inevitable. A handful of judges on the Supreme Court are most likely going to make sure I wear that label for the rest of my life, so I might as well start using it to refer to myself and my fellow Catholic bigots now. It'll be easier to get used to it that way.
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 28, 2008 1:34 AM

Yeah, you are persecuted - just like Jesus was.

Get off the cross, we need the wood.

Grigory, don't try to debate with my old friend, sig; she will just change the topic when you prove her wrong.

When she asked "When was the last time conservatives saw gay people beating straight people to death?", and I answered her with the example of Gacy's 33 known boys, she changed the topic to the "far greater numbers of heterosexual male serial killers" in general. Of course there are; heterosexual males outnumber gay males about 99 to 1.

And I would be willing to bet that far more bisexuals, gays and lesbians are beaten and/or killed by others of their orientation than by straights.

There probably are as many if not more gay, bi and lesbian serial killers of heterosexuals as the reverse, even though heterosexuals outnumber them 97 to 3. And when you factor in AIDS, just who is killing whom?

Because of the "love that can't keep its mouth shut", as someone termed it a few threads back, one would think that bisexuals, gays and lesbians outnumber straights 97 to 3.

Erin,

While you and I continue to disagree on some major points, I must confess to some empathy for your sentiment about the label "bigot". I don't agree with your logic... and to be bluntly honest, I assert that you do not qualify for that label. No smileys, I'm serious.

You may have seen me write about this before, so I'll be brief: my mother, who renounced her Judaism as a teenager and spent four years hiding with her family in northern Italy under daily threat of death or removal to a concentration camp, asserted to her dying day that there is something rotten at the core of the German culture. My mother was a bigot. When confronted about it, her answer was, "Yes. So?"

What you do about the label and with others who want to use it is your choice. At some point, the choice that will confront you (and it may already have, given what you've written about other things here and elsewhere) is: will you accept the fact that some of your neighbors are different from you in ways about which you disapprove (imply stronger reaction here), or will you do something about it personally and directly?

I've known quite a few racists in my life. I grew up amongst them. The vast majority of them did not act on their racism, and dealt with the "other" as a civilized society calls upon them to do. Whatever the "other" is for you, whether it is race, sexual orientation, or fill in the blank, my expectation is that you will do the same.

When you wish to talk about subtle and embedded persecution, sit down with me and we'll compare notes. I don't claim a more-than-thou stance, but you may learn some things... and I expect to learn as well.

A civil war over people in a committed, loving relationship getting married? Good heavens, examine your priorities and the Scriptures.

Boy, Anglican, now you're really confusing me. Let me try to understand this . . . Muslims are the epitome of evil because they want to destroy America for not submitting to their religious views. Yet you would destroy this nation, if it decided via democratic processes allowed for in the Constitution, not to affirm your religion in one aspect, and that makes you . . . a good Christian? Fortunately, I don't take your angry rant seriously, because it seems to me that if you were going to go to war with America, you'd already have gone to war over abortion, which must surely be a bit more serious to you than gay marriage. Again fortunately, you're still here, posting not fighting. Which I see as a good thing.

Erin, I don't intend to pile onto you, since you're already doing battle on several fronts. Speaking for myself as one raised in a Catholic mindset, I've had to try to find ways to work around what seems to be an inculcated tendency to assume false dichotomies. Such as, either you favor gay rights or you're a bigot. Is it not possible that we might all give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you are just mistaken, or that your experience and beliefs have led you down a path that we see as misguided, but which doesn't make you an evil human being over all? That's how I prefer to think of it.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure, based on earlier statements by you, that you do consider ME pretty much pure evil. There's no chance, in your eyes, that I have good intentions but have been misinformed. I'm just plain bad! A representative of everything you despise and hate! So I have do a little work, reminding myself to see that you are not, in fact, a bigot. But that's okay--it's good practice for me and I thank you for the opportunity to see you as a human being much like myself.

Daniel,
Read Anglican's post again. It wasn't about "committed loving relationships". It was about resisting persecution of Christians.
You are either being dishonest or you have poor reading proficiency.

As for "persecution" of those who disagree, I heard the very self-same arguments in the 1960's, when various persons went around alleging that the government was going to force them to associate with blacks even in their own homes, that "your sister will marry one" and so forth.

A certain amount of this came to pass, in that those who ran public establishments were no longer allowed to discriminate amongst their patrons on the basis of race, and some restrictions were placed on the worst of "hate speech." But articles are still being published, and talks are still being given, even in this year of 2008, asserting that blacks are less intelligent/more prone to crime/you name it than whites, with no dire consequences. And no one has yet forced your sister to marry one.

Now, a lot of people's sisters have married one (brothers too), but in time most people discovered that this wasn't exactly the end of the world.

When everyone calms down, it will be (re)discovered that only a small minority of the population is homosexual, that these people are not interested in recruiting other people to their ranks (like, as if that were possible), and that the Republic will not shudder on its foundations if we allow these people to form civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. And that the right to persecute other citizens who do not share your personal moral views does not rank high in the list of human rights, to say nothing of what Jesus would probably have to say about it.

People were worked up into a terrible blither in the 60's over race; one of my closest friends was beaten to within an inch of his life when he went to Mississippi to register black voters, and of course many people lost their lives in that effort. Now, with a few exceptions up in the hills there, everyone shakes their head and wonders what the heck the problem was.

Some here say race and gender preference aren't at all the same thing, but if so, why do all the arguments sound so similar?

Francis Beckwith writes: "Consequently, when the state affirms same-sex marriage, it acts willfully against the order and nature of things."

I'm glad Francis finds happiness with his vision and certainty of "the order and nature of things". It's a pity he doesn't share my vision or that of many other citizens but that's life.

**************************************
VR writes: "Boy Scouts--no one is taking away their religious freedom."

Scouting USA decided to kick out gays, agnostics and atheists (Apparently, the absolute scum of the Earth, although the BSA charter doesn't technically rule out Satanists). The courts confirmed their right to do so because the BSA is a private organization. Some of the BSA's financial contributors like the United Way have clauses in their charters to not support organizations that discriminate on the basis of race of religion. Local governments can also be under the same restrictions.

Scouting USA is not having its religious freedoms curtailed. They simply opted out.

As a volunteer in a peer-to-peer Christian marriage ministry that enjoys non-profit status, I am troubled if, by this ruling, the state of California can force the organization to include "samesexattracted" peers to the program? How will such peers share with each other the benefits of their conjugal wisdom in living out the Nuptial Sacrament if some of the husbands' experience is more of a "receptive" quasiwife, while other partners jealousies don't center on the usual infidelities but rather "Whose womb, yours or mine" for the next injection of fluid bought from the fertility clinic?

I am saddened that I even have to discuss such a scenario in America, what happened to liberty?

Anglican,

I'm very much a religious conservative. But I believe that if we took a Libertarian type approach to freedom of speech, religion, and marriage, i.e. only having civil unions for consenting adults and leaving marriage to churches, without any kind of state involvement and interference, I think our civil liberties as religious conservatives would be fine.
Are there those on the left who want to restrict our liberties with things such as "hate speech"? Sure. Some of them say some disturbing things in this regard, and there are good reasons not to trust these folks. In fairness though, there are also some knuckleheads on the right who have their issues with the First Amendment as well. As long as those on both the right and the left who don't believe in the First Amendment aren't allowed to make decisions on these things, we'll be fine.
If the left did end up attempting to suppress the civil liberties of conservatives in the name of "gay marriage," then our duty would be to resist non-violently, and only if things got really bad to use violence. There are very few cases in which I think violence would be warranted or necessary. One would be the totally suppression of civil liberties, especially state actions against churches. The other would be if the state ever went to forced abortions as is the case in China. I'd definitely shoot to kill any state official who tried to do that to my wife and child and would gladly try and overthrown the state if that was its policy. So far, I don't think we need to get that concerned, though we should always be vigilant about our liberties.

rr

Right, John, for your throne, no doubt. :)

The only throne I have is made of porcelain ;-)

Why on earth *do* you feel the need to read what I write on this subject as some kind of premature martyr's lament?

Because of the extreme hyperbole you use...

I'm just saying that if you want same-sex marriage, you're going to have to agree that people who oppose it on religious grounds are bigots.

Sez you! It is also possible to believe that people who oppose it on religious grounds are simply mistaken in their beliefs about the nature of the universe.

--but apparently you gay marriage supporters are fine with imposing your views on the rest of us.

No one is imposing any views on you - nobody is forcing the Catholic Church to marry gays.

It's possible to reflect on the relatively small number of these relationships, and on whether the huge social upheaval required to impose gay marriage on a largely unwilling society is worth the cost to accommodate such a tiny number of citizens.

What social upheaval? Point to the social upheaval that has taken place in Massachusetts or Canada.

Insisting that gay marriage is the only right course of action at this moment in history and that those who don't agree will just have to accept the inevitable curtailing of their rights on the grounds that they are bigots who don't deserve to continue exercising those rights is a completely arbitrary position to take.

Again, what rights of yours will be curtailed?

Posted by: Erin Manning | May 28, 2008 2:53 AM

John, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because when I look at Massachusetts I see social upheaval. For example, kids in Massachusetts public elementary schools *must* be read gay fairy tales and taught that two men or two women are just the same as Mommy and Daddy--those who don't like it can only, as has been said repeatedly, opt out (which means taking your kids out of public school, as it has already been decided that asking for religious accommodation, for kids to be removed from classrooms when these sorts of things are being done, is not possible)--but does anyone doubt that eventually the options for "opting out" will themselves be curtailed, so that the vast majority of American schoolchildren will be taught that their parents who oppose gay marriage are just bigoted and wrong? Catholic Charities can no longer place children for adoption--and they weren't receiving any state aid, it's just that the state requires state licensing of adoption agencies and won't give a license to agencies that won't place kids with gay couples. And if the new push to create special rights for transgender people in Mass. succeeds, the stifling of religious dissent will grow even stronger.

Sure, Catholics will still be able to go to church on Sunday. But our right to live according to *all* the teachings of our Church, not just the ones society approves of and doesn't find bigoted, will indeed be curtailed in hundreds of little ways, unless we take up the "Benedict Option" and withdraw from society almost as completely as the Amish have done.

Chris, as far as I'm concerned, you've earned the right to snap at anybody you like. :)

But I think our disagreement comes from a different way of looking at things. Will America fall simply because Bill and Ted's excellent adventure includes a trip down the aisle complete with white lace and pearls on one or both? No, but the softening up and decay of a culture from the inside can, and has, contributed to that culture's extreme unreadiness to face serious challenges, including military ones. Couple the elevation and exaltation of the individual and his desires with an unwillingness to sacrifice anything for the greater common good, and combine that with the muzzling of the Church and the marginalization of anyone who doesn't jump aboard the gay-marriage express, and you've got a pretty good cauldron of civilization-ending ingredients sitting over a sluggish fire. One incendiary catalyst under that cauldron is all it would take to bring things to a boiling point--it could be military attack or economic chaos or any one of a number of other things, and it might not happen for decades--but how ready will we be to face it, when we're so busy trying to create a left-wing utopia and not caring how many of the supports of a healthy civilization we're tearing down in the process?

Erin,

I am a religious conservative (confessional Lutheran in theology), so we both agree about the immorality of homosexual behavior and the absurdity (or rather blasphemy) from a theological standpoint of "gay marriage." Conservative Protestants such as myself are far closer to our brother and sister conservative Catholics such as yourself than we are to mainline Protestants.
From a political point of view, however, I think we are going to have to face the fact that beyond the idea of "consenting adults" our society no longer shares a common set of sexual values. It used to be that fornication, adultery, polygamy, divorce and re-marriage, and homosexual behavior was considered widely as immoral behavior, not just by religious people, but by society as a whole. Sure, these things happened but they were widely seen as wrong, and the law reflected that.
Clearly all that has changed. This whole "gay marriage" debate we currently are having been a long time coming as the taboos on all of these other immoral activities have steadily fallen over time. As you have already noted, at this point civil marriages simply don't mean much anymore. I mean honestly, when a man and a woman can get married and divorced multiple times and get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, how seriously should we treat civil marriages? We are we so surprised by yet another farce such as "gay marriage"?
I don't see any other option for us conservative Christians to ultimately preserve our civil liberties and the freedom of our churches except the Libertarian approach that I've already described, having the state issue civil unions to any consenting adults (including more than two). This would leave marriage to churches without any outside interference or involvement from the state. Honestly, do you see any other doable way out of this mess except getting the state out of the marriage business?
I'm totally with you on church schools, hospitals, and charities. It would be a violation of the First Amendment for the state to tell who and under what conditions a church, church school, or charity can hire and fire. If the left really doesn't believe in the First Amendment and tries to use the state to push the church around, we should resist
them. It would be better for a Catholic school to close down schools than teach the heretical idea that homosexual behavior is normal and moral.
If the left really is foolish enough to try this, I predict there would be hell to pay politically and socially. The state would have a very hard time coping with the social problems brought by the closure of conservative church schools and charities. That and they would have conservatives ready to vote all the politicians responsible out of office or even ready for an armed rebellion in the worse case. They will only push things this far if they want to tear the whole country apart over forcing religious conservatives to accept the behavior of 3% of the population.
For the moment, I don't see this happening. So why don't we religious conservatives try the Libertarian approach?

rr

P.S. For anyone interested, 48 hours had an interesting special on polygamy last night. It estimated that there are 40,000 polygamist families in America. Only one-fourth of these are the FLDS, 30,000 of them, and they had interviews with some adult women who enjoy polygamy, live fairly normal lives, often living in suburbia and blending in there. In short, you may be as likely to have a polygamous family in your neighborhood as a gay couple.

Oh Erin, I really don't think the world is ending because my neighbors Brad and Jeff (or my dear friends Kate and Angela) can get married now. All of these people are more than willing to sacrifice for the common good (for starters, that's what marriage is all about), and since all four of these people are staunch Church-goers (Kate is the heart and soul of her parish), though not your particular Church, I sort of don't see the muzzling of the Church in their future.

Well, your Church isn't the whole Church, but I guess you don't see that.

Golly, I donno. Your posts sort of break down to, "everyone who doesn't agree with me on this particular point isn't really a Christian and in addition favors the victory of the barbarians at the gate." You might be right. But, can you pause for a minute, long enough to see that not all Americans, even not all committed Christians, agree with you on this? Just a tiny idea that you might possibly be wrong about all this, or at least there might be an opposing view which is not necessarily The End of The World As We Know It?

RR, I'm not sure where this will end up; I'm sure that Catholic thinkers much more qualified than I am to address the issue will weigh in on the prudential actions that we ought to take. So far the Church has been opposed to civil unions on the grounds that they create a "parallel marriage" situation and would lead to outright gay marriage, a prediction that came true in Massachusetts (and apparently California, though the grounds for that decision were different). If gay marriage were to be a fait accompli, though, the Church might end up supporting the kind of abolition of civil marriage/libertarian approach you describe--especially if the choice is between the abolition of civil marriage in favor of "civil unions" or some such thing, and the acceptance of permanent restrictions on the freedom of ordinary Catholics to live according to Catholic teachings in the world.

permanent restrictions on the freedom of ordinary Catholics to live according to Catholic teachings in the world.

Erin, relax. No one will force you into a same-sex marriage (or a remarriage after divorce) against your will. No one will force you to accept people as married, into your home, who you do not view as married. If anyone tries to force you or anyone else to stop voicing your views on these topics, I will be right there on the barricades beside you.

If your children are taught in school that same-sex marriage is OK, or that the teacher who has been twice divorced is now "really" married to her current husband, or that condoms are a wonderful thing, or that the child in the next desk who was conceived in vitrio or by artificial insemination is perfectly OK, or that the classmate who just had an abortion should be supported in this, you remain free to explain your views to them after school, just as you were before. Back in my day public schools actively fostered Protestantism, and ridiculed Catholics; hence the Catholic school system. Should the public schools have done this? Probably not, but Western Civilization survived the blow.

Adoption agencies are licensed by the State for very good reasons. If Catholic Charities is not on board, there are many good agencies to fill the gap. Private adoptions remain an option for those so inclined.

The real difficulty of your position, at least as you articulate it here, is that you come off as being opposed to love. These two people love each other, and are ready to commit their lives to each other and to their children, but Erin opposes that because they don't meet her criteria. (They are of the same gender, or they were once back in the day married to other people.) A child is to be placed in a loving family (as opposed to languishing in foster care) but Erin is against it because the family involved doesn't meet her standards.

Do you see how that sounds to people who don't share your assumptions? Kate and Angela will be denied legal protection because Erin doesn't like them. Brad and Jeff's daughter will be denied legal protection because Erin disapproves of the whole situation. Jason will remain in foster care or an institution because the family which wants to adopt him and take care of him isn't good enough for Erin.

You say it's "the Church", but what you really mean is, your Church. There are perfectly respectable Christian churches who have no problem whatever with any of this, which leaves us, I guess, with the argument that your Church is the True Church and all the others aren't. I put it to you whether this is a debate which really ought to take place in the public secular forum.

So far the Church has been opposed to civil unions on the grounds that they create a "parallel marriage" situation and would lead to outright gay marriage...

THE Church. Hear the assumption? "My Church (the Roman Catholic Church) is the only 'real' Church." Not all Christian churches take the position you are articulating here.

But then, they're not "really" churches, right? rr, a Lutheran, and Kate, an Episcopalian, would not necessarily agree with you on all points. Even the Orthodox have some differences with the Catholics, yes?

Erin. You and your group are not the whole world.

"legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty "inevitable."

Wrong tense, invalid premise.

With all due respect, it is the denial of same-sex marriage, specifically, the State refusing to allow those religions that do embrace same-sex marriage the religious liberty to do so according to their tenets, that have made these clashes "inevitable".

"No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them"

Bwahahahaha. Lots of people who post here "seriously" do "believe" just that. I have no idea why, since no Catholic Church has ever been "forced" to re-marry a divorcee.

And I find it more than pasing strange that Steinfels includes in the "institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, [and for whom] its legal acceptance would have "substantial impact", ... schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs"

Publicly financed schools are not (or at least should not be) "opposed" to treating all citizens equally, nor should health care centers (especially), social service agencies (especially), homeless shelters (especially), nursing homes (especially), orphanages (especially), community centers (especially), athletic programs, etc.

As if gay people, married or not, are not students, do not require health care or social services, cannot be homeless, do not need nursing homes and care, cannot be orphans, cannot use community centers, cannot be athletes, ...

Interesting juxtaposition:

One question asks, "Must a Bible college admit a legally married gay couple to married student housing?" (to which John E. perceptively asks "Bible colleges admit gays?" - some do though not all of them, and even then, not knowingly, John) while the next asks, "Must an Orthodox Jewish day school offer health benefits to the spouse of a legally-married gay employee"?

Are we allowed to ask if the Orthodox Jewish day school would even hire a gay employee, let alone one so open as to be (Gasp! Horrors!) "legally-married"? And don't let's lose sight of the fact that either of the Reformed branch or the Conservative branch of Judaism may have been the very institutions that legally married the gay employee.

Dontcha just love it when religions can't agree on things?

quote: "Ya mean like those same institutions were seen as stone-cold racists when, despite their "tradtitional teachings on marriage", the ban on inter-racial marriage was lifted? If the shoe fits ...
How are homophobic institutions "better" than racist institutions?"

Me: Except the shoe doesn't fit, and the old ban on interracial marriage is a red herring. Moral opposition to homosexuality and racism aren't the same thing. Not by a long shot. The history of race in this country is much, much different than the history of views on homosexuality, especially as the whole "gay identity" is of fairly recent vintage.
Oh yeah, and the term "homophobia" doesn't make sense. It literally means "fear of sameness." The intended meaning doesn't make sense either as those who have a problem with homosexuality generally do so because of moral/religious views not out of some irrational fear.
Finally, your implication that "homophobia" and racism are similar would most certainly lead to the curtailment of First Amendment rights. Since you comments here seem to indicate that you don't understand or believe in the First Amendment, that's not particularly surprising.

rr

rr:

As you observe, one need not be a "homophobe" to oppose same-sex marriage, just as one need not be a "racist" to oppose interracial marriage. Back in the day, many opponents of legalized interracial marriage simply believed that the Creator had desired the separation of the races, and that interracial marriage violated God's will. This did not necessarily imply a belief as to the inferiority of one race or the other.

In any case, "homophobe" is name-calling, and thus to be avoided by all fair-minded persons.

Is racism "rational"? Is opposition to same-sex civil union "rational"? That depends very much on what you mean by "rational." I have yet to hear an argument against secular recognition of same-sex marriage which strikes me as being based purely on reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't any, just maybe that I've been fishing in the wrong ponds.

However. Until we erect a statute to the God of Reason and start burning incense thereon, it's a moot question.

As you so clearly observe, our difficulties lie elsewhere. As in, how can we live together in peace or a reasonable facsimile of same?

Wow, it seems a bit odd to me that the YMCA is being portrayed as a victim of persecution by homosexuals. This may not be true everywhere, but it certainly was true in one of my cities of residence that gay gym memberships were a big source of the downtown YMCA's support. It would be ridiculous for them to refuse family benefits to a lesbian couple, under those circumstances. This sounds like a stand based on financial reasons rather than principles. And anyone who thinks there are no gay men or boys in the Boy Scouts is delusional. It's a looking-glass world where hypocrisy holds the mirror . . . .

Susan,

Thanks for your comments, especially for recognizing that "homophobe" can simply be name-calling. I do believe that all we need to do for this issue is go to civil unions for all and take a Libertarian, life and let live approach. The more we talk about this, the more I'm convinced this the way to go for both sides.
The reason I don't like the comparison between racism and moral opposition to homosexuality is that the history of these two issues is very different. During the course of this country's history, African-Americans experienced enslavement, which only ended because of the Civil War, the bloodiest, most destructive war in this nation's history. Amendments were then specifically added to the Constitution to ensure their equality as citizens and their voting rights, but Southern states (to their great shame-though the North hardly had a perfect record either) took away these rights during and after Reconstruction. Then, African-Americans had to live under Jim Crow laws and lynchings, only to have the liberties granted to them after the Civil War restored in the 1960s. Certainly other races and groups, Asians (the Chinese and Japanese on the West Coast), Native Americans, and Catholics have also experienced racism and tremendous discrimination.
Theological justifications for racism, including those against interracial marriage were invented after the fact, after the late seventeenth century as race-based slavery and the racism that accompanied it increasingly became part of the fabric of American society, especially in the South. It should be pointed out, however, that the issue of slavery did come to divide denominations prior to 1865, and abolitionists used Scripture to support their arguments as well.
Homosexuals in this country certainly have experienced discrimination of sorts, but at a time in which "homosexuals" were not even recognized as a category of people as with African-Americans. But gays were never enslaved, had their voting rights taken away, or forced to use separate public facilities. The whole concept of "gay identity" is a fairly recent one altogether. Until very recently, almost every church and religious group saw homosexuality as immoral for theological reasons. They didn't justify their moral opposition to homosexuality after the fact as with racism.
Certainly, negative views of homosexuality weren't just religiously based. For example, until the 1970s, the American Psychology Association saw it as disorderly. Before the 1970s, almost all people, both religious and secular, had negative views of homosexuality. Today we simply don't have the kind of shared values on sexual morality, homosexual or otherwise, which is why civil unions for all are the only thing that will work for all parties.
I think we religious conservatives need to realize we live in a pluralistic society without a consensus on sexual morality. Hence, we need to treat homosexuals and others we regard as living immorally as fairly as possible, without compromising our own personal beliefs. Still, I continue to object to the idea that racism and opposition to homosexual behavior can be equated, both for historical reasons (it's completely inaccurate) and for the implications this would have on the civil liberties of social conservatives.
Anyway, hopefully the above explains where I'm coming from a bit more.

rr

rr

I think we religious conservatives need to realize we live in a pluralistic society without a consensus on sexual morality. Hence, we need to treat homosexuals and others we regard as living immorally as fairly as possible, without compromising our own personal beliefs.

I am not, myself, a homosexual. I consider homosexuals to be deviants. Accordingly, I am not qualified to speak on the suffering and oppression which has been inflicted on the homosexual community. I'm not going to attempt this. That endeavor is for others, for those who have experienced this suffering.

I would ask you, rr, to recognize, however, that that suffering exists, and has existed.

But for myself, you have spoken very well. Not everyone here agrees with us, with you and me, on sexual morality. However. We need to pause and think long and hard before we call the State to impose sexual morality on other people by the force of the gun, understanding that winds shift, and that that gun may well be pointed at us sooner than we think.

Our only safety, our only rational position, has got to be civil neutrality.

If you or I consider homosexuality to be sinful, we should not practice it. If you or I consider divorce and remarriage sinful, we must not divorce and remarry.

If you or I see the plank in our brother's eye, we might pause for a moment. At any rate, invoking the power of the State, which is the power of the gun, is a most dangerous enterprise.

More nonsense from Erin:

"I'm just saying that if you want same-sex marriage, you're going to have to agree that people who oppose it on religious grounds are bigots."

I certainly don't have to do any such thing. Instead, I can choose to call them people who disagree with me.

That way, I can reserve the terms "bigot" and "homophobe" for those that compare my relationship to "marryin' a plant", (or an animal, or a child, or an inanimate object - you know, the terms that dehumanize, diminish, debase and demean God's gay and lesbian children). The kind of people who bear false witness about them. The kind of people who think we're not much more than "college roomies shackin' up, sharin' stuff".

If those terms ring a bell, the shoe fits. Wear it with pride my dear.

"I'm just saying that if you want same-sex marriage, you're going to have to agree that people who oppose it on religious grounds are bigots."

Erin apparently thinks that there are two, and only two, classes of people:

1. People who agree with Erin and her group on every single detail of every moral rule Erin is pleased to promulgate. These people are known by her as "right."

2. People who do not agree with her on every detail of every moral rule she is pleased to promulgate. These people are known as "enemies" and are just about to call her a "bigot" and to persecute her. This last regardless of the actual behavior or opinion of these people. They may be ready to live and let live, but that is a concept incomprehensible to Erin's mindset.

In Erin's universe, peaceful co-existence is impossible. Live and let live is impossible. You either agree with Erin in every detail, or you are the Enemy, and are just about to jail Erin - and probably execute her - for disagreeing with you. (Or, if Erin catches up with you, she'll do the same to you.)

The real opinion of people who disagree with Erin is irrelevant.

" Gays weren't ... forced ... to do things such as drink out of separate water fountains."

Was a time not so long ago in America that a gay person could be arrested just for being in a bar. Something about "status crimes".

Was a time not so long ago in America that a gay person could be denied an apartment or a job just for being gay (or a person who was thought to be gay).

Was a time not so long ago in America that a gay person could be burned to death in a Louisiana bar because firefighters didn't think "fruites" were worth rescuing.

Was a time not so long ago in America that a gay person could be lashed to a fencepost in Wyoming and pistol whipped and left to die.

Don't presume that your selective version of history is on your side either.

rr,

"I think we religious conservatives need to realize we live in a pluralistic society without a consensus on sexual morality. Hence, we need to treat homosexuals and others we regard as living immorally as fairly as possible, without compromising our own personal beliefs."

To "treat gays as fairly as possible" means treating us equally before the law. You can do that and still think us deviant, or sinful, or evil, or the equivalent of a plant or an animal or a table top. You remain free to hold your religious beliefs about us and to preach them far and wide, so long as all citizens are treated equally (equal being fair).

You and Erin are free to call my mariage and those of re-married divorced people "sham marriages" and thus not compromise your beliefs(just don't be surprised when people react to you wierdly). What you are not free to do is to impinge upon our right to be treated equally under the law. And, unfortunately for your side, that will mean allowing us to marry the person we choose.

Now, what about our religious beliefs? And why would yours trump ours?

RR,

Just as a side comment, the cognitive disconnect concerning plural relationships (more than 2, terminology has yet to catch up) crosses all lines. Recovering is no more hypocritical for objecting to the legalization of plural marriage than you are in finding the legal logic supporting it compelling.

We are engaged in a serious conflict, not over the topic per se, but over the tensions between culture and law. My ire over those who insist on forcing "what about blah" into the discussion is that each topic has its unique qualities. The differences may be subtle between any two given topics, but they are there, and when it comes to the law, differences are critical either in their definition or in how the law bulldozes over them.

I have many friends, male and female, spanning the spectrum of sexual orientation, how are adamant believers that a committed relationship cannot exceed two people, no matter what. I love them just the same, and they and I don't have a problem when I support some of their notions and reject others.

The a detailed discussion about the psychological aspects of plural relationships is for another time and place, but the literature is weighted towards the hypothesis that cultures where plural marriage is normative, jealousy in other areas of emotional life is less than in cultures that disapprove of plural marriage but allow it, and much less than in cultures where plural marriage is illegal. It should be noted, too, that where plural marriage does exist, monogamy still tends to be the majority case. The most successful plural marriage traditions explicitly require the consent of all parties before an additional spouse enters the relationship.

rr,

"I don't deny that homosexuals have been mistreated and that violence has been used against them in the past."

In the past? That's a laff and a half. Still to this day, right here on good ole B'net people on your side of the, ahem, 'debate', think nothing of slathering spiritual violence on gay people. What do you think equating us real live gay people with plants, animals and countertops is if not dehumanizing?

"there is no question in my mind that the comparison between moral opposition to homosexuality and racism is historically inaccurate and probably insulting to African-Americans."

Like I've repeatedly said, Coretra Scott King, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Mildred Loving, Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson disagree with you. Forgive me if I take their word over yours on the matter.

"Otherwise, yes, to treat gays fairly does mean to treat them equally."

Thank you for your agreement.

However you cannot separate your list of rights as you subsequently do ...

"This means they should have the same rights under the Constitution as other citizens, namely the freedom of speech, religion, association, fair trial, voting rights, etc."

And I have repeatedly pointed out that our right to freedom of religion is impinged upon by statutes that forbid faiths from performing same-sex marriages. Why do you refuse to address this obvious impingement on our rights?

"As for marriage, I've already said that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and just issue civil unions for all consenting adults"

It is up to you to convince your fellow heterosexuals to give up marriage. Good luck with that.

(And, sorry, but I refuse to dignify your constant comparisons to multi-partner marriages and incest with a reply. That is not what we are discussing here.)

"The term "marriage" has religious connotations."

You don't need to tell me that - I was married in my Church. (Do you keep forgetting?) My Church, and an increasing number of other faiths and denominations, does embrace same-sex marriage. And you refuse to acknowledge that, as well as refuse to acknowledge that currently our freedom of religion isimpinged upon.

"The state shouldn't be in the business of doing religious things."

This is hwt I bleieve is called a logicl fallacy. Marriage is not solely a "religious thing", and civil marriage is specifically not a "religious thing".

"Plus, beyond consent, we no longer have anything resembling consensus in our society on matters of sexual morality, homosexual or otherwise."

Agreed. Erin still thinks divorced people re-marrying is "immoral", and yet it is perfectly legal for divorced people - even Catholic - to get re-married civilly. And folks who think such marriages are "immoral" or "sham marriages" are still free to say so. Scream "Sinner!" as loud and as often as you wish - you are free to do so. But you are not free to try to prevent others from their freedoms - religious or otherwise. That is what is rightfully called imposing your moral/religious views on other people.

"Let churches and other religious groups perform marriages however they see fit without any kind of state interference or involvement."

The result of that would be that your church marriages would no longer be viewed by the State as legal entities. good luck with that, too!

"But get the state out of the marriage business."

You keep saying that, and then propose the State replace marriage with "civil unions". Again, best of luck with that, especialy when you try to pitch it to your fellow betterosexuals.

"Your church should have the right to marry gays."

Thanks for your support. Not sure why, then, you are even bothering to debate the topic.

"I think it is absurd, but it's none of my concern as I won't attend such a church."

For the umpteenth time, you are welcome to believe it is "absurd". (And yes, you are right - it is "none of [your] concern" although you people sure make it sound like it is your concern here. A lot!) But I, likewise, find the notion that calling re-married divorced people's marriages "sham 'marriages'" and "sinful" equally "absurd", and i likewise would not "attend such a church". That's the beauty of freedom of religion - for those that actually have it.

"To be blunt, you don't seem to understand the First Amendment with respect to religious liberty. You mentioned on an earlier thread that you don't understand why a Catholic school should be allowed to not hire a homosexual. Sorry, but the First Amendment not only permits freedom of speech ("hate speech" laws are odiously anti-democratic), but freedom of religion means churches and private church schools and charities can hire and fire whoever they want for doctrinal reasons without any kind of state interference."

The operative word here is "private". Leaving aside Churches (which, btw, in their tax exempt status are, in fact, government subsidized), let us look at Catholic Schools. They get tax money directly too. And some of it is my tax money. If and when Catholic organizations let go of their government subsidies, they are free not to abide by government standards.

"The First Amendment also means that public schools shouldn't be able to teach that homosexual behavior is moral. It means full freedom of speech and religion, even if said speech and religious beliefs bother you."

That's an odd interpretation of "free speech", especially considering that if they did teach "that homosexual behaviour is moral" (becasue, imo, it can be), it would "bother you", so you get to say they "shouldn't be able to teach" what they believe, to restrict that teaching. Can you say "selective"?

"Finally, I don't think you are any less of a person because you engage in homosexual sex."

But you aren't the one(s) comparing me, my husband and our relationship to "marrying a plant". That phrase (and the other ones comparing us to child-molesters, rapists, necrophiliacs, beastialists, etc.,) very definitely tries to put us in the light as "less of a person". It is outrageously de-humanzing, and the wierd part is, it tends to come from people who "claim Christ".

"I think homosexual sex is a serious sin, like fornication or adultery."

And, (once again) you are perfectly free to believe that. The illogicality of forbidding homoexuals from marrying and yet not likewise forbidding fornicators and adulterers from marrying is simply absurd.

"I also think that gay marriage is a theological impossibility"

How many times must I say you are free to believe what you want to believe before you accept that I believe your are free to believe what you want to believe? How many times must I ask "But what about my>/B> religious beliefs? Why should yours trump mine?" before you dei8gn to answer me?

My faith teaches otherwise. And an increasing number of faiths think likewise. What give you the right to impinge upon our religious beliefs and freedoms?

"and that two men and two women simply can't be married. I assure you that where I live this idea isn't "weird" at all."

And I assure you that where I come from, it is a totally accepted idea. Are rights and freedoms to be doled out based on their popularity now?

"At the end of the day, you should repent of your sin and turn from it."

What a nonsense idea. My faith does not teach that my relationship, my love, is "sin". I cannot "repent" of loving my husband, and the notion is absurd. Your repeating it (ad nasueam) to someone who is not of your faith makes no sense at all - if you actually believe in freedom of religion.

"But don't forget, you aren't any less of a person."

I've never 'forgotten' it because I've never believed it, no matter how many times Erin posts otherwise. Maybe you should try convincing her. Or, maybe you just really meant, 'You aren't any less of a person, just more sinful than me.'

"First, no Catholic and other private religious schools don't get government funding."

My posts seem to keep disappearing, but let me assure you, rr, where I live, The Catholic School system most definitely does receive government funding. It is a huge bone of contention amongst the populace, most of whom are against it.

"As for public schools teaching about the morality of homosexuality, I don't think they should teach morality one way or the other."

And, as I pointed out above, my contention is that they don't. You did say, "The First Amendment also means that public schools shouldn't be able to teach that homosexual behavior is moral." That kind of contradicts your most recent statement that you "don't think they should teach morality one way or the other."

" If they did teach homosexual sex was moral to my child"

If, if if... They don't. They teach that homosexuals exist, and that homosexuality exists. They explain what it is, what we are.

"I never compared you and anyone else to a plant"

Nor did I ever say that you did. It is Erin who said/says that.

"though I do think your "marriage" to another man is a complete fiction."

To which I constantly reply that you are free to believe what you want to believe, no matter how delusional it is.

"My religious beliefs on marriage is that it is only possible between people of the opposite sex"

And my religious beliefs on marriage teach otherwise. So my question - which you ever faithfuly avoid - remains - why do your religious beliefs trump mine? Your only answer is, "I never said my religious beliefs "trump" yours, though clearly I believe that I am right and you are badly, badly wrong on gay marriage." which is nothing more than reiteration of your religious beliefs. That you would have your religious beliefs imposed into law tells me that you do, indeed, believe your beliefs trump mine, because I, likewise, believe that I am right and you are badly, badly wrong on gay marriage.

"I'm not sure why you think a growing number of religions support gay marriage."

Because they are.

"The only ones that do are ones like the Unitarians and mainline Protestants"

Apart from the fact that this is patently false (you seem to have forgotten the Quakers, and both the Reformed and Conservative branches of Judaism), if you actually do believe in freedom of religion, so what if it is "ones like the Unitarians and mainline Protestants"? Don't they count? Or are you of the belief that yours is The One And Only True Church (TM)?

"Religious groups that support "gay marriage" are on the fringe"

Again, quite false. The largest Protestant denomination in Canada, The United Church, is hardly a "fringe" religion. How insulting.

"you need to repent ... homosexual sex is sin" are only tenets of your religion. I am not a member of your religion and am equally free to dismiss such rantings as false teachings. I, too, pray you will wake up to that one day.

See how this exercise of freedom of religion works?

Erin: "I'm just saying that if you want same-sex marriage, you're going to have to agree that people who oppose it on religious grounds are bigots."

recovering ex-Pentecostal says that you are wrong, Erin, but he knows he's not telling the truth. In his own once free and proud country, what I now call his Socialist Canadian gulag, Christians must walk on egg shells lest they be brought before tribunals of federal Human Rights Commissions. They can be branded officially as engaging in "hate speech" (i.e., bigotry) and fined for pointing out in public what Scripture says about homosexuality. See for example http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08010207.html, which I've referenced before. Catholics seem to be the favorite targets.

Even if a Christian should ultimately prevail after years of proceedings before the biased tribunals, Commission, and levels of courts, the legal expenses could be ruinous--which of course is what the homosexual activists count on; it's a win/win situation, and all it takes is one allegation from one homosexual. As one Canadian Human Rights Commission mediator said to a gulag victim (a Christian politician who was critical of homosexual conduct), "freedom of expression is an American concept." A concept recovering ex-Pentecostal will not allow in his country, but is very big on for himself on this board.

It puts one in mind of Anglican's above reproach to some on this board: "You're acting like the groups of psycho-paths in the Chinese cultural revolution that terrorized enemies of the people." There are many Christians and like minded people in recovering ex-Pentecostal's once free Canada who found out too late that Anglican is correct. (I used to spend a lot of time fishing in Canada, but now the country sickens me.)

It's amazing how proficient homosexuals are at using Socialism to their advantage. And how stupid they must feel when the beast inevitably turns on them as soon as Christian principles of political and religious freedom for all are expunged from society. The cancer has already started in America.

recovering ex-Pentecostal says that you are wrong, Erin, but he knows he's not telling the truth. In his own once free and proud country, what I now call his Socialist Canadian gulag, Christians must walk on egg shells lest they be brought before tribunals of federal Human Rights Commissions.

Cleveland, Hi! Haven't crossed words with you lately, I'm glad to see you! Missed you! All well with you and yours, I hope!

Back to the topic. Please to cite specific instances in which American Christians (or, anyone else) have been brought before "tribunals of federal Human Rights Commissions" (whatever that may mean) merely for their opinion that homosexuals are sinners. Please to include url's or something. Please to not include instances where the real or alleged sexual orientation of the target was used as an excuse to discriminate in employment or housing. I'm looking for the policing of opinion only, not of discriminatory actions.

Cleveland! You can burn a cross in my front yard any time you want to, by the way! I'll give you the address upon request. My neighbors would be highly amused, especially the married gay couples (if that's your intention). My stock in my neighborhood would go up considerably, and Jeff next door, who is an excellent cook, might even bring me more of his apricot flan! (Which you can have some of if you sneak in the back entrance. I'd never tell.)

Hey, though, on the cross-burning, watch out for our local police. My town is very intensely policed; you don't want to get caught in the act!

Marian says: OTOH, the Catholic school that fired a woman teacher for getting raped and not aborting the resulting pregnancy got a pass for that too.

Documentation please.

May I second Scrappy's motion here? A raped woman is a victim, according to the Church, not a sinner, and Church law requires her to protect the baby nonetheless. The woman in the story deserves a medal. I'd be interested in hearing the real story here. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

rr:

Thanks for your comments, especially for recognizing that "homophobe" can simply be name-calling. I do believe that all we need to do for this issue is go to civil unions for all and take a Libertarian, life and let live approach. The more we talk about this, the more I'm convinced this the way to go for both sides.

Sensible. "Homophobe" is more often mere name-calling than anything else, being code for "you don't agree with me on this issue."

I don't see any problem with civil unions. The Catholic Church, to pick the organization I am most familiar with, has quite detailed requirements if a couple seeks to be married "in the Church." Otherwise, civil union for you.

To be married in the Catholic Church, both parties must be baptized Catholics (with a few exceptions). Of course, we're talking one man, one woman, and both of them must be physiologically fertile and capable of intercourse. (No crushed testicles allowed.) (Illogically, extreme age is OK.) Neither must have been married before, unless the previous union was dissolved by the Church as invalid, a lengthy and expensive process, or the previous spouse has died. The wedding must take place in a Catholic Church not on a beach or a mountaintop or other "cool" place. Of course a priest must officiate. Nowadays, there is a lengthy (typically six months), required course of study beforehand ("pre-Cana"). (Not in my day. We married on 2 weeks notice, without any "instruction" whatever, and we've been married for 41 years, which shows you right there how wrong-headed that policy was.)

Marriages which do not meet these criteria are not recognized by the Church. The Catholic Church is well within its rights here.

Marriages which do not make the grade here are "civil unions" so far as the Church is concerned. I don't see that breaking a few more rules would make that much difference. Either you're in or you're out, yes? And if you're out you're out.

So, what's the problem?

Old Susan,

Chill - we're skeptical that this case even exists.

The Church is usually criticized for insisting on no abortion, ever, even rape and incest, the most popular exceptions. To repeat a false claim that a Catholic school punished a teacher who followed what the Church teaches, in spite of severe personal and social pressures, seeks to make a mockery of the moral absolute that the Church embraces and is bigoted in the extreme. The claim must be proven or recanted.

Marian? Please to be responsible? Or to pretend at least?

"Marian? Please to be responsible? Or to pretend at least?"

Sorry, I'll try to track it down over the weekend. This was a story I saw in a magazine a while back, of course can't remember where. Thank heaven for google.

BTW, the search process was interesting. First I tried "Catholic School Teacher Raped," and got a cartload of stories about abuse of PUPILS in Catholic Schools. "Pregnant Catholic School teacher" eventually hit pay dirt.

Marian,

I'm disappointed. I figured that maybe you misremembered some facts about an old news story, but, a Lifetime Movie? "Based on" a true story? Are you kidding me? The teacher is Catholic, not the school (relevant, I suppose, to explain her motivation to keep the child) and like Old Susan noted, abortion isn't even part of it. Now the thread is old and only a few of us will know about your negligent disregard for the truth.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I KNOW I didn't see the movie, I read a magazine article someplace which I still haven't managed to track down, which presumably later spawned the movie. Thought I was doing a pretty good job tracking down SOME reference to 'a true story' ie I didn't make it up.

Marian says: OTOH, the Catholic school that fired a woman teacher for getting raped and not aborting the resulting pregnancy got a pass for that too.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I KNOW I didn't see the movie, I read a magazine article someplace which I still haven't managed to track down, which presumably later spawned the movie. Thought I was doing a pretty good job tracking down SOME reference to 'a true story' ie I didn't make it up.

Notice that the first statement comes on as a statement of fact. A Catholic school fired a woman for not getting an abortion. And they got a pass for that. Fact.

Then, when documentation is required (and not available) it becomes "I read a magazine article someplace which presumably later spawned the movie."

"I read an article someplace or other which maybe generated this movie which may or may not have anything whatever to do with the facts. No names, no places, but hey, 'I didn't make it up' because I read an article someplace or other which said something or other. About this. Sort of."

You can see that I didn't make it up.

I have always been consistent that liberals and progressives (Gays and Democrats) are hell-bent to destroy the Church. It is the truth revealed by the facts.

Also...it was once a 'religous belief' that blacks and whites should not marry and have interacial babies....in 50 years or so the Church will be FINE with homosexuality...you'll see...or not, depends on our age! :)

A lot like Lot, considering the true sin of Sodom was inhospitality.