Same-sex Marriage Debate is Officially Over in Canada

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


I seem to recall that the People's Republic of China recently took some rather draconian measures against homosexuals. Would the government of the PRC qualify as atheist?

Damn! He got me.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by loinburger

Sure, now that interracial marriage is generally accepted, it's obvious that the people who used biblical quotes to justify proscriptions on interracial marriage were wrong. Ditto with the people who used to use biblical quotes to justify slavery -- obviously they were using those quotes out of context (or something). Yet point out that the book of the Bible most often cited for its proscription of male homosexuality is the same book in which God demands animal sacrifices, says that menstruating women are unclean, forbids blood transfusions (or so says the interpretation set forth by the Jehovah's Witnesses), says that adultery should be punished by death, that handicapped people are unholy, that blasphemy should be punished by death, that slavery is acceptable so long as you're only enslaving heathens, etc., and that maybe it's a bit disingenuous to cherrypick the male homosexuality proscription in light of the numerous absurd/barbaric statements in the book (i.e., that maybe the male homosexuality proscription is being taken out of context, just like the passages that were used to justify proscriptions of interracial marriage and just like the passages that were used to justify slavery), and all of a sudden it goes from "I disapprove of the message, therefore the quotes must have been taken out of context" to "well, gays are awfully icky, so I see no reason to question the context of the biblical quotes being used to justify keeping homosexuals as second-class citizens." Well, balls to that.

I think you make a valid point and I'm not going to defend christian beliefs that I dont hold myself. What I find interesting in the context of your cherrypicking comments is that it suggests that prejudice against gays is more ingrained than prejudice against other races and that is a viewpoint I find hard to rationalize.

[loinburger]

It makes more sense when you consider how vehement the religious right is in stating that homosexuality is a choice. "Well of course we shouldn't discriminate against those poor unfortunate non-whites, it's not like they chose to be non-white. Gays, on the other hand, have chosen to be icky."

Whether homosexuality is a choice, is genetic, is influenced by prenatal hormone levels, etc., is completely irrelevant to the gay marriage question (and the subject of gay rights in general) -- that is, unless you're desperately trying to draw a distinction between biblical proscriptions against interracial marriage and biblical proscriptions against male homosexuality.

Also, it's not so much a question of whether the prejudice is more ingrained, it's more a question of whether the prejudice is more "acceptable." It is no longer acceptable to argue that interracial marriage should be outlawed -- doing so gets you branded a racist. However, if you argue that homosexual marriage should be outlawed, then when somebody calls you a homophobe you can roll your eyes and retreat to the "well I may hate gays, but at least I don't resort to name-calling!" moral high ground.

[Elok]

Out of curiosity, does anybody here know of anti-miscegenation attitudes in the Christian world prior to around the colonial era? I ask because the Christian church has been opposed to homosexuality from the beginning, but I don't know if the same holds true of interracial marriage.

I don't recall encountering any stigma against marrying a nonwhite in medieval lit, provided they were Christian. Saracens who converted to Xianity, like Palamedes in Arthurian legend, seem to be treated as just another man. And there's a story in the legends of Charlemagne wherein all the Paladins are fighting for the hand of a Cathayan (ie, Mongol) princess. Even in Othello, there's no mention of religious objections to his marriage, just good old-fashioned racism and belief in his inferiority and savagery.

'Course, the whole question is irrelevant in the case of the Sola Scriptura fundy crowd who are leading the vanguard against gay marriage; just thought I'd ask.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH


It's not so much whether something is controversial so much as why it's controversial. Interracial marriage was not controversial because of a religious viewpoint. Opposition to interracial marriage is based on racism. I know of no biblical reference saying different races cant 'be joined before god' (or something to that effect). OTOH, gay marriage in the USA is controversial because of firmly held religious beliefs. We are not going to change those beliefs. Rather than continuing to stir the hornets nest, I've consistently advocated separating the legal issue of civil unions (which is not opposed by anywhere near the same number of americans) from the buzzword of 'gay marriage' that sends the funde's into a frenzy and triggers opposition by the moderate americans who dont oppose civil unions.

Marriage can be administered by either churches or in a secular manner, by the justice of the peace.

Religious homophobes are willfully ignorant of this distinction, and in order to strengthen their bigoted "argument" focus on marriage as a religious institution. But marriage has never been exclusively a religious institution.

So gays and lesbians gaining equality through the same institution of marriage rather than the "separate but equal" rationalization of "civil unions" will not force churches to marry gays and lesbians.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Damn! He got me.

The east is red, the sun rises.
China has brought forth a Mao Zedong.
He amasses fortune for the people,
Hurrah, he is the people's liberating star.

Chairman Mao loves the people,
He is our guide,
To build a new China,
Hurrah, he leads us forward!

The Communist Party is like the sun,
Wherever it shines, there is light.
Wherever there is a Communist Party,
Hurrah, there the people are free!

[Elok]

MrFun: I would say rather that they are equivocating, deliberately using one sense of a word to stand in for an entirely different sense. When they speak of "the sanctity of marriage," they're invoking the idea marriage as a religious sacrament, but they're discussing civil marriage. And there's nothing in a JP ceremony about Christ as the head of the church, one flesh, etc. They're called by the same name, but they're entirely different animals in terms of attitude. A JP wedding is simply an agreement to live together and support one another.

It's a noble sentiment, or can be, but there's nothing spiritual intrinsic to it. Its real, hard significance is a set of legal duties, rights and privileges meant to stabilize human society. As far as the government's concerned, it's just a contract, and adultery is a breach of contract provided the pre-nup specified as much. But because the government-sanctioned agreement has the same name as the religious sacrament, it's taken on a sort of sanctimonious patina--one which the fundies are taking excellent advantage of. If everyone had "civil unions," they'd be hard-pressed to continue the game.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
And there's nothing in a JP ceremony about Christ as the head of the church, one flesh, etc. They're called by the same name, but they're entirely different animals in terms of attitude. A JP wedding is simply an agreement to live together and support one another.

Which is the same point I made.

[Arrian]

I'm with those who would rather seperate civil unions (legal contract - gummint) from marriage (sacrement or whatever - religion) for all.

Anyway... Canada

-Arrian

[-Jrabbit]

I think heterosexual "marriages" by a justice of the peace should be classfied as civil unions rather than as religious marriages. Otherwise, we're right back equating civil unions with separate but "equal" institutions like schools, drinking fountains, and back-of-the-bus seating were for "blacks" in the pre-Civil Rights Act period.

[Arrian]

Agreed. I had a non-religious JP wedding, and I'd be fine with it being classified as a "civil union."

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
Agreed. I had a non-religious JP wedding, and I'd be fine with it being classified as a "civil union."

-Arrian

Of course you would be fine with it -- for straight people getting married, the words "civil union" has no connotation of "separate but equal."

But since gays and lesbians belong to a maligned minority group that is still faces discrimination, the words "civil union" do not have as 'neutral' of meaning.

[DinoDoc]

Did you watch Wedding Wars on A&E, MrFun?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Did you watch Wedding Wars on A&E, MrFun?

No, I didn't. In fact, I watch very little television.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by loinburger
It makes more sense when you consider how vehement the religious right is in stating that homosexuality is a choice. "Well of course we shouldn't discriminate against those poor unfortunate non-whites, it's not like they chose to be non-white. Gays, on the other hand, have chosen to be icky."

I think this is an interesting distinction.

Whether homosexuality is a choice, is genetic, is influenced by prenatal hormone levels, etc., is completely irrelevant to the gay marriage question (and the subject of gay rights in general) -- that is, unless you're desperately trying to draw a distinction between biblical proscriptions against interracial marriage and biblical proscriptions against male homosexuality.

Since I live amongst the southern baptists I'd have to say that I dont see that kind of dilemma amongst my religious friends and collegues. As I understand it, an important component of their church life is to question the meaning of the bible (something that came as a surprise to me). That being said, most seem to have decided that homosexuality and interracial marriage are against "gods-law" but that interracial marriage does not refer to skin colour.

Also, it's not so much a question of whether the prejudice is more ingrained, it's more a question of whether the prejudice is more "acceptable." It is no longer acceptable to argue that interracial marriage should be outlawed -- doing so gets you branded a racist. However, if you argue that homosexual marriage should be outlawed, then when somebody calls you a homophobe you can roll your eyes and retreat to the "well I may hate gays, but at least I don't resort to name-calling!" moral high ground.

IMO, based on my experiences with these people, white southern attitudes towards blacks were a hold-over from the days of slavery and they were not based on their religious beliefs. I'd have to say that if white southerners believed that interracial marrige refered to skin colour then we'd have fought another 'civil war' over it. Their religious beliefs are not lightly held and they dont care about political correctness with respect to them.