Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/18/2010 06:38:10 PM · #3976

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You aren't really going to make me explain are you? Maine's church attendance is 31%. Polls like that have lots of people who declare themselves "Christian" just because their parents were or they are American or what not. It's like being declared Native American because your great-grandmother on you dad's side was an Apache. Does that designation indicate that your behavior and attitudes can now be succinctly categorized based on your Apache-ness?

So basically you are saying the Christian in Maine doesn't value their religion enough to attend church, but does value it enough to vote against gay marriage solely on that basis. Just seems odd to me.

Just speaking from personal experience I know many people who don't attend church on a regular basis yet still claim to hold Christian values. Since 82% of the people in Maine call themselves Christians I'll take their word for it. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise or is this just another leap of faith you're making?

Yes, the polls for the vote much more categorized it as a generational thing, regardless of religious preference, than anything else. I've been trying to find the exit poll data, but I can't seem to uncover it on Google. I've seen it before. Maybe someone can help me out. You will see that even among people with no religious preference there is still a sizable % who were against gay marriage. Age and rural location were predictors.

I'm not making the argument that Christians were no different than anybody else, but if you think everybody who voted against was Christian, then you would be wrong. (likewise, it would be wrong to say every Christian voted against if you consider 82% of the state is "Christian" and only 52% voted it down).

Message edited by author 2010-01-18 18:39:10.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/18/2010 07:27:27 PM · #3977

No I'm not making the argument that only Christians voted against gay marriage. Sure others did a well. If you find the exit poll numbers I'd love to see what the result would have been minus those claiming to be Christian or otherwise religious.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/18/2010 08:08:30 PM · #3978

Originally posted by yanko:

Sorry, I looked for a good 20 minutes and I just can't find it. Too bad.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/18/2010 10:32:29 PM · #3979

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Interesting statement... I don't believe that I care more about humanity, and I certainly didn't say that. I wonder what your motive was behind that wild assumption...

Well, it's not such a wild assumption when you blaze into the middle of the discussion and try to whip a guilt trip on the entire crowd by calling pretty much everyone a bunch of whiny, self-centered, spoiled children.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of how or why some of us do what we do, whether it be fighting for equal rights, working in a soup kitchen, helping out at church, or maybe helping out the single mom down the street who can't make ends meet.

Who the hell do you think you are to tell us that we don't have the right perspective on how it is that we look at the world? You seem to be another one of those kids who simply doesn't have much in the way of real life experience who thinks he has all the answers. You have your ideas of how life should be, fine, do what you want, but don't presume that you know better than the next guy. And trust me, you have nothing I want in the way of ideas and guidance on how I want to live my life.

That's so freaking arrogant it's off the charts.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/19/2010 02:09:18 AM · #3980

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Well, I've lived in another country and I can say first hand that many people around the world think we are self-centered and spoiled. That's not a new and crazy idea. I'm just one American that's willing to admit that's true. I'm sorry if that is offensive to you Jeb, but it's not my original idea. Check the polls. Most of the world doesn't like us very much, although Obama has helped to improve that.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Who the hell do you think you are to tell us that we don't have the right perspective on how it is that we look at the world? You seem to be another one of those kids who simply doesn't have much in the way of real life experience who thinks he has all the answers. You have your ideas of how life should be, fine, do what you want, but don't presume that you know better than the next guy. And trust me, you have nothing I want in the way of ideas and guidance on how I want to live my life.

That's so freaking arrogant it's off the charts.

I didn't say that I have all the answers... I didn't say that our perspective was wrong necessarily. I'm just suggesting we consider other perspectives. Isn't that what everyone wants in this thread anyways? Don't you want all those Christians to think about gay rights from a gay person's perspective? If we don't consider other perspectives then we are self-centered. I know that I don't have all the answers, but I don't think the U.S. constitution has all the answers either.

Many of you have suggested that religion, and in particular Christianity, is what's holding back gay rights. Well, I'm pretty sure that's because many of us are self-centered and not willing to consider another perspective. Just read all the posts in this thread! The secular folk allege that Christians are selfish and don't consider the gay person's perspective, and what it's like to face discrimination. The Christian folk allege that the secular people don't consider the religious person's perspective, and what it's like to see society accepting what many religions believe is unacceptable.

Isn't this the problem we've all been having and all been accusing others of?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/19/2010 07:28:47 AM · #3981

I'm not going back and forth with you any more. As long as you try to justify any sort of discrimination of gays on any level, you're just as bad as the worst kind of fundamentalist extremist. It's wrong, and I don't care, nor want to hear your twisted version of a rationale for it.

As long as you believe in anything short of equal rights for gays, you're no different than the people who killed Mattew Shepard, or the people in Uganda.

There is no justification for discrimination.

ETA: Yes, I'm closed-minded.....I'll spell it out:

Equal Rights=Good

Discrimination=Bad

Message edited by author 2010-01-19 08:16:16.

01/19/2010 10:42:45 AM · #3982

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Christian folk allege that the secular people don't consider the religious person's perspective, and what it's like to see society accepting what many religions believe is unacceptable.

Isn't this the problem we've all been having and all been accusing others of?

You appear to presuppose that religious and secular beliefs should be accorded a similar level of respect.

That is, of course, wrong. Most modern western nations are secular, have separated church from the state and adopted freedom of religious practice. Freedom of religious practice does not protect religion so much as protect people from religion - they cannot and should not be forced to comply with the religious practices of any one religion.

Accordingly, we don't stone people for adultery, lock them up for blasphemy or allow people to corrupt children through teaching creationism in schools. We don't require people to attend mosque on Fridays, synagogue on Saturdays, church on Sundays, or their family temple everyday. We don't prevent people from killing cows or eating shellfish. etc etc etc

Historical oddities remain - including the one that prevents same sex couples entering into the same social marriage contract as heterosexual couples. The reasons are based in religion and social stigma, but this is something that is gradually being fixed across the developed world (and will no doubt be reflected in the developing world (inspired by our example) in due course).

At an absolutely fundamental level, allowing same sex marriage should have absolutely no impact on the way you practice your religion. Your morally questionable religious perspective should be totally irrelevant - it is only because voters don't separate secular from religious belief that it is being taken into account by those elected into office.

01/19/2010 11:18:03 AM · #3983

And who do you propose, Matthew, is the arbiter of determining what is "religious" and what isn't? How do you respond to the Libertarian who takes it a step further and says you have no right to tell him what to do about anything? (ie. pay taxes, fight in the army, etc. etc.)

Although you might sound like you are saying something important, you are merely saying, "we should not have to do things I don't agree with". You give yourself away in your last line by expecting people to divorce their religious ideals with their right to vote (which is easy for you because you have no religious ideals). Everybody has the right to voice their opinion in the polls and advocate for their own position. Everybody. The courts are designed to keep unconstitutional laws off the books, not you (or anybody else). Until that point, the view should be "accorded a similar level of respect", although you certainly don't have to agree with it.

I bristle when I see intellectual elitism so clearly portrayed. Religion has nothing to offer thus it should be completely ignored. This is a fringe opinion in society (even if it seems to fly in DPC Rant).

EDIT: I hope that didn't sound like I was flying off the hook. I just wanted to lodge my disapproval of your position. I don't think it's correct.

Message edited by author 2010-01-19 11:39:46.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/19/2010 12:22:25 PM · #3984

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I just wanted to lodge my disapproval of your position. I don't think it's correct.

But he is entitled to his position, and to him it is indeed "correct". Just as yours is to you.

From Matthew's post:

"At an absolutely fundamental level, allowing same sex marriage should have absolutely no impact on the way you practice your religion."

For me, this remains an argument/theorem/whatever that still has yet to be answered in a satisfactory manner. There are no "victims" in permitting same sex marriage, other than perhaps really lousy wedding planners.

He goes on to say:

"Your morally questionable religious perspective should be totally irrelevant - it is only because voters don't separate secular from religious belief that it is being taken into account by those elected into office."

And here I will agree that this is his opinion, to which he is most definitely entitled and is neither "correct" nor "incorrect" from an absolute standpoint. I disagree with it - and therefore my opinion differs. To a religious person, their morals are not "questionable"; and everyone can vote their beliefs as they see fit in the US.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/19/2010 12:23:26 PM · #3985

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

As long as you believe in anything short of equal rights for gays, you're no different than the people who killed Mattew Shepard, or the people in Uganda.

That is a dreadful thing to say. You may as well suggest that as long as anyone remains Muslim, they're no better than Osama. Honestly, with hyperbole like this it's no wonder there's so much ill will around here.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/19/2010 12:27:43 PM · #3986

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
As long as you believe in anything short of equal rights for gays, you're no different than the people who killed Mattew Shepard, or the people in Uganda.

That is a dreadful thing to say. You may as well suggest that as long as anyone remains Muslim, they're no better than Osama. Honestly, with hyperbole like this it's no wonder there's so much ill will around here.

Thank you.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/19/2010 12:32:10 PM · #3987

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Equal Rights=Good

Agreed, and always have.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Discrimination=Bad

Agreed, and again, always have.

I never said I supported any kind of discrimination. It's unbelievable that even though I've clearly stated numerous times that I oppose discrimination, people still assume that I support discrimination simply because I'm religious.

Message edited by author 2010-01-19 12:33:13.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/19/2010 01:01:50 PM · #3988

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maybe I was unclear. My intention was to point out that the law is substantially secular. The state does not apply or enforce religious law (religious courts do this - usually as adjudicators within a contractual framework).

I am not sure where you got the concept that people should only follow laws that they believe in.

Religion is usually pretty obvious - if the justification is contained in a religious text, funded by a religious organisation, and irrational, then it is religious.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You give yourself away in your last line by expecting people to divorce their religious ideals with their right to vote (which is easy for you because you have no religious ideals).

Not at all. I said that people don't (not shouldn't) divorce their religious ideals from their secular ones. My point was that lawmakers *should not* start bringing into force laws based on religious ideals just because a majority believes in them - eg stoning adulterers, teaching creationism. However, invariably, lawmakers will take into account the beliefs of the majority because it affects their chances of re-election.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Everybody has the right to voice their opinion in the polls and advocate for their own position. Everybody. The courts are designed to keep unconstitutional laws off the books, not you (or anybody else). Until that point, the view should be "accorded a similar level of respect", although you certainly don't have to agree with it.

I agree with you in parts.

I agree that people should be free to speak and advocate their position.

However, the modern democratic system is a representative democracy within a secular constitutional framework. It is not true democracy or majority rule. In upholding these princinples, lawmakers should be looking to exclude laws that are religiously originated - even if they represent majority views.

When I said "morally questionable" that was my opinion - designed to provoke a response :-)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

EDIT: I hope that didn't sound like I was flying off the hook. I just wanted to lodge my disapproval of your position. I don't think it's correct.

Of course not - I know that you are a courteous debater.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/19/2010 01:09:04 PM · #3989

Originally posted by Matthew:

That is, of course, wrong. Most modern western nations are secular, have separated church from the state and adopted freedom of religious practice. Freedom of religious practice does not protect religion so much as protect people from religion - they cannot and should not be forced to comply with the religious practices of any one religion.

I still don't get this. The only governments where religion is separated from the governments are communist government. I'm not certain what western nations your talking about when you call them separated from church and state.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches â�� which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches.

01/19/2010 01:09:42 PM · #3990

Originally posted by Louis:

Agreed. Apart from being very rude, when you resort to this illogic it really undermines (1) your credibility; and (2) the argument being made (including the arguments of those people with whom you've aligned yourself).

01/19/2010 01:16:06 PM · #3991

Matthew, how would you approach the 65-year old rural Maine farmer who votes for Question 1 (against gay marraige) purely on conservative grounds. That is, he reflects that civil marriage has always been a contract between men and women since the inception of our country and if you ask him (and we are by asking him to vote) he would choose to keep it that way. He doesn't know anything about constitutional law, and frankly doesn't care. That is an issue for the courts. I'm guessing this example represents a sizable chunk of Maine voters who voted against gay marriage. It's a secular argument and it's rational. The question becomes whether it violates the constiution, but we don't have to rely on Mr. Farmer to be able to interpret that. (And if it is eventually determined that it does violate the constitution, I give it a 0.0% chance the reasoning has to do with separation of church and state.)

I bring this up merely to say if we could somehow keep everybody from voting their religious conscience the problem would go away.

01/19/2010 01:19:00 PM · #3992

Originally posted by Nullix:

The only governments where religion is separated from the governments are communist government. I'm not certain what western nations your talking about when you call them separated from church and state.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches â�� which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches.

Your comment is very US specific - I was trying to be a little more generic. There is lots of detail on the wiki:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

The principle is generally applied in most western states (in particular in the US - Jefferson's constitution for Virginia was the first to apply the concept). It is not universal or complete (e.g. in the news today was a call for the British constitution to be amended so as to remove the prohibition on the king marrying a Catholic - it contravenes human rights law). However, it is generally applied.

01/19/2010 01:31:59 PM · #3993

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is a fundamental mistake in your question - people vote for representatives, not policies.

I don't pretend that there is a perfect answer. Representative democracy is the least worst way of governance discovered so far. Of course a party voted in on a mandate of preserving the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is going, as a matter of practice, to do exactly that.

However, in other situations the representative is empowered to make decisions that take into account all the factors. For example, as well as constitutional limits, he should take into account the relative impact of the decision on different groups. The gay marriage question has zero real impact on the disapproving majority, and very significant impact on the minority gay population. In this case, it would be reasonable for the representative to ignore the majority.

Edit to add - I see Maine did have an independent ballot (apologies for my ignorance on this), hence your example. These kinds of ballots or referenda are quite obnoxious and detract from the benefits of representative democracy. I'll think more about the specific question later.

Message edited by author 2010-01-19 13:40:59.

01/19/2010 01:57:26 PM · #3994

Originally posted by Matthew:

The gay marriage question has zero real impact on the disapproving majority, and very significant impact on the minority gay population. In this case, it would be reasonable for the representative to ignore the majority.

While I certainly agree with the impact on the gay population, I disagree with your "zero impact" statement. Not when people do boneheaded things like taking their first grade class on a fieldtrip to witness a lesbian wedding in the heyday before Prop 8 in California. Not when the photographer in New Mexico lost her case to not photograph a gay marriage. We can debate on the severity of these impacts, but I don't think it is "zero" and this is only the forefront. If gay marriage gains wide legal protection I would expect many unforseen challenges that would impact the majority population.

Message edited by author 2010-01-19 13:59:55.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/19/2010 02:20:06 PM · #3995

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We can debate on the severity of these impacts, but I don't think it is "zero" and this is only the forefront. If gay marriage gains wide legal protection I would expect many unforseen challenges that would impact the majority population.

While it is indeed quite conceivable that there could indeed be unforeseen challenge that "might" impact the majority population, one must also take into consideration that these impacts differ not one iota to those that occur whenever a segment of society opts to discriminate against a minority group... which is exactly what is happening here.

Ray

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/19/2010 02:26:12 PM · #3996

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Matthew, how would you approach the 65-year old rural Maine farmer who votes for Question 1 (against gay marraige) purely on conservative grounds. That is, he reflects that civil marriage has always been a contract between men and women since the inception of our country and if you ask him (and we are by asking him to vote) he would choose to keep it that way. He doesn't know anything about constitutional law, and frankly doesn't care. That is an issue for the courts. I'm guessing this example represents a sizable chunk of Maine voters who voted against gay marriage. It's a secular argument and it's rational. The question becomes whether it violates the constiution, but we don't have to rely on Mr. Farmer to be able to interpret that. (And if it is eventually determined that it does violate the constitution, I give it a 0.0% chance the reasoning has to do with separation of church and state.)

I bring this up merely to say if we could somehow keep everybody from voting their religious conscience the problem would go away.

What scientific legwork have you completed that led to this conclusion? Or is it just based on your singular belief that if they don't go to church they can't possibly hold religious ideals? I guess by your logic because the son doesn't go to church he couldn't possibly picked up some of his parent's religious values, or his grandparents, etc, etc?

Awhile back you couldn't stop arguing that marriage and its' defintion was inheritly religious and you couldn't separate the two. Now you're saying there are great masses of people out there that don't think of marriage as a religious concept at all. How interesting...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/19/2010 02:30:01 PM · #3997

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How do you respond to the Libertarian who takes it a step further and says you have no right to tell him what to do about anything? (ie. pay taxes, fight in the army, etc. etc.)

This is a red herring ... the issue is not whether laws apply to citizens, but whether they apply equally to all citizens regardless of ethnicity or gender.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/19/2010 02:32:44 PM · #3998

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That class had prior parental permission to take those students on that "field trip" -- so, are you calling those parents "boneheaded" for they way they choose to raise and educate their kids?

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/19/2010 02:49:17 PM · #3999

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
The gay marriage question has zero real impact on the disapproving majority, and very significant impact on the minority gay population. In this case, it would be reasonable for the representative to ignore the majority.

While I certainly agree with the impact on the gay population, I disagree with your "zero impact" statement. Not when people do boneheaded things like taking their first grade class on a fieldtrip to witness a lesbian wedding in the heyday before Prop 8 in California. Not when the photographer in New Mexico lost her case to not photograph a gay marriage. We can debate on the severity of these impacts, but I don't think it is "zero" and this is only the forefront. If gay marriage gains wide legal protection I would expect many unforseen challenges that would impact the majority population.

Would it have been "boneheaded" to have visit a heteorsexual wedding? Would a professional photographer be in the right to refuse to shoot an interacial marriage?

But you're right, ever since the Bill of Rights those who are pro-discrimination have been impacted.