![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaI wanted to hold onto an exchange I'm participating in, in someone else's journal. (I will let that person decide whether to provide a link, because they might not want an influx of my friends piling on.)
Other person: To me, the issue is not whether I feel Christiantity is in danger, but more of whether I feel a minority group is getting their agenda forced on the majority politically to the detriment of society as a whole. It can cut both ways with conservative fundamentalists demanding no abortion, or with liberal fundamentalists demanding every couple being a recognized marriage. Both sides do it.
Journal owner: I understand and agree that there are crazies on both sides, however your example isn't the best illustration.
Abortion rights doesn't mean that everybody needs to go have an abortion. It means that people have the liberty to make that choice for themselves.
Marriage rights doesn't mean that hetero marriages need to be dissolved, just that people have the liberty to make their own choice.
On the conservative side, the argument isn't usually "I don't want to be forced to do it," but rather "nobody should be able to do it."
Other person: I disagree. Whether you consider the two examples apples-to-apples or not, both sides are tying to force other people to live by their values. [...]
Me: I assure you that advocates of same-sex marriage do not want to force you to marry someone of the same sex.
Other person: No, but they DO want to force people to redefine somehing they consider sacred to mean something else.
BTW, I have been very careful to not take a position on anything in this forum. The passion with which people react to discussions like this proves the point I was hoping to make: that until we can settle down and listen to the other side, we will never solve anything. We have infused so much emotion into our positions that we've lost all reason and would rather demonize and dismiss the opposition so we don't have to bother to convince them.
Are we so attached to our own positions that we can't even brook the conversation for fear of being convinced ourselves? THAT is fundamentalism.
Me: No, but they DO want to force people to redefine somehing they consider sacred to mean something else.
I think it's important to separate out marriage-as-legal-status from marriage-as-sacred-ritual.
Churches and other religious organizations have always been able to set their own definitions of marriage; for example, many ministers and rabbis will refuse to officiate at an interfaith marriage, and my understanding is that in some religions, people who were not married in a correct religious ceremony (e.g., they had a courthouse ceremony with a justice of the peace) are not considered to be married at all, in the eyes of the church.
I think it's entirely reasonable for religious organizations to be able to declare that gay marriage isn't marriage by their definition - that they won't perform those marriages in their churches, and won't recognize those couples as being married in the eyes of the church. I don't agree with that point of view, but I consider it to be up to the members of those denominations.
What is not reasonable, in my mind, is for religious denominations to say that it would somehow be injurious to their faith if my friends Charles and Glen, who have been together for nearly thirty years, could share health benefits and have widowers' rights to each other's Social Security benefits. When you claim that your religious rights are infringed upon unless rights are withheld from other people, that's where you've lost me.
Charles and Glen, incidentally, are members of my church. My church believes that marriages between members of the same sex are fully sacred and equal. So aren't our religious rights being infringed upon, if your church's position gets to trump my church's position?
The passion with which people react to discussions like this proves the point I was hoping to make: that until we can settle down and listen to the other side, we will never solve anything. We have infused so much emotion into our positions that we've lost all reason and would rather demonize and dismiss the opposition so we don't have to bother to convince them.
I think you've unwittingly given an excellent example of how it can happen that Christians believe themselves to be persecuted. A few polite words of disagreement have sent you into a flurry of complaints about "passion" and "losing all reason" and "being demonized."
Other person: To me, the issue is not whether I feel Christiantity is in danger, but more of whether I feel a minority group is getting their agenda forced on the majority politically to the detriment of society as a whole. It can cut both ways with conservative fundamentalists demanding no abortion, or with liberal fundamentalists demanding every couple being a recognized marriage. Both sides do it.
Journal owner: I understand and agree that there are crazies on both sides, however your example isn't the best illustration.
Abortion rights doesn't mean that everybody needs to go have an abortion. It means that people have the liberty to make that choice for themselves.
Marriage rights doesn't mean that hetero marriages need to be dissolved, just that people have the liberty to make their own choice.
On the conservative side, the argument isn't usually "I don't want to be forced to do it," but rather "nobody should be able to do it."
Other person: I disagree. Whether you consider the two examples apples-to-apples or not, both sides are tying to force other people to live by their values. [...]
Me: I assure you that advocates of same-sex marriage do not want to force you to marry someone of the same sex.
Other person: No, but they DO want to force people to redefine somehing they consider sacred to mean something else.
BTW, I have been very careful to not take a position on anything in this forum. The passion with which people react to discussions like this proves the point I was hoping to make: that until we can settle down and listen to the other side, we will never solve anything. We have infused so much emotion into our positions that we've lost all reason and would rather demonize and dismiss the opposition so we don't have to bother to convince them.
Are we so attached to our own positions that we can't even brook the conversation for fear of being convinced ourselves? THAT is fundamentalism.
Me: No, but they DO want to force people to redefine somehing they consider sacred to mean something else.
I think it's important to separate out marriage-as-legal-status from marriage-as-sacred-ritual.
Churches and other religious organizations have always been able to set their own definitions of marriage; for example, many ministers and rabbis will refuse to officiate at an interfaith marriage, and my understanding is that in some religions, people who were not married in a correct religious ceremony (e.g., they had a courthouse ceremony with a justice of the peace) are not considered to be married at all, in the eyes of the church.
I think it's entirely reasonable for religious organizations to be able to declare that gay marriage isn't marriage by their definition - that they won't perform those marriages in their churches, and won't recognize those couples as being married in the eyes of the church. I don't agree with that point of view, but I consider it to be up to the members of those denominations.
What is not reasonable, in my mind, is for religious denominations to say that it would somehow be injurious to their faith if my friends Charles and Glen, who have been together for nearly thirty years, could share health benefits and have widowers' rights to each other's Social Security benefits. When you claim that your religious rights are infringed upon unless rights are withheld from other people, that's where you've lost me.
Charles and Glen, incidentally, are members of my church. My church believes that marriages between members of the same sex are fully sacred and equal. So aren't our religious rights being infringed upon, if your church's position gets to trump my church's position?
The passion with which people react to discussions like this proves the point I was hoping to make: that until we can settle down and listen to the other side, we will never solve anything. We have infused so much emotion into our positions that we've lost all reason and would rather demonize and dismiss the opposition so we don't have to bother to convince them.
I think you've unwittingly given an excellent example of how it can happen that Christians believe themselves to be persecuted. A few polite words of disagreement have sent you into a flurry of complaints about "passion" and "losing all reason" and "being demonized."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 07:50 pm (UTC)I've said/written this (minus mentioning
If it actually works this time, I'll have to invent a suitable celebration.
It really is that simple though:
- ∃ Christian churches that recognize and sanctify same-sex marriages.
- ∴ the "but we're being discriminated against if everybody else isn't forced to use our definitions" argument doesn't work ...
... even if you let them limit the discussion of "legitimate" religion to Christianity for the duration of the debate.no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 12:54 pm (UTC)(OK, we do, but we call them "conference papers" and all parties consent to them.)