![[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 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 03:12 pm (UTC)I am very pleased that you took the time to calmly respond and provide a well-thought out answer to her posts. I'm not so talented.
My first thought at her response to you was "Oh, she took on the WRONG person if she wanted to make the pro-gay marriage stance look unreasonable and crazy". :-)
BTW, your link to the the Charles and Glen story takes unregistered users to a password-protected page.
If anybody wants to look at the discussion, feel free. I would only request that people remain polite.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 03:13 pm (UTC)*because to do otherwise would prove her point. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 03:23 pm (UTC)I thought you did great. I especially appreciated the way that you called her on the "demonizing" thing.
BTW, your link to the the Charles and Glen story takes unregistered users to a password-protected page.
Argh, that's always the way with newspapers these days, isn't it? Registration is free, and there's also BugMeNot (http://www.bugmenot.com).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 03:24 pm (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 05:05 pm (UTC)Thank you!
I pointed out to my parents that people who argue that gay marriage should not be legal because they feel allowing gay marriage would change the definition/sacredness/whathaveyou of matrimony have already lost**. People get married in all sorts of religious and secular ceremonies all the time, whether or not they are also legally binding marriages, and the anti-gay marriage community cannot do a thing about it. Those people are married in one part of the definition; if these marriages are going to ruin the fabric of various religions beliefs and structure then it would have already happened. *looks around for the Apocalypse* *taps foot, checks watch*
The thing that always ticks me off is the insistance in believeing in this idea of the sacredness of marriage tied up with a romantic ideal, and that marriage has been and will always be that way. That belief is a modern Western idea, and it's ludicrous to point back at the "good ole' days" that were really completely different.
** I really don't think of it as winning or losing, this is just to make a point.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 05:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 06:17 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 08:12 pm (UTC)I'll have to go read that story later. I seem to recall you posted it to your journal once?
*What Would Rivka Do? :-p
no subject
Date: 2007-05-10 08:14 pm (UTC)Reciprocity
Date: 2007-05-10 09:26 pm (UTC)Matthew 22:21, "...Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
"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?"
Luke 6:31, "...And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
This isn't difficult at all. The position of Jesus is very clear, even if the position of those who say they follow him is not. How they can manage to fall afoul of some of his best known precepts is beyond me, but we are enjoined to judge not.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 04:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 06:23 am (UTC)So aren't our religious rights being infringed upon, if your church's position gets to trump my church's position?
Exactly. Grrrrrrr....
(psa: a good friend of mine runs an awesome organization dedicated to fighting for immigration rights for gay couples, I always like to pimp it where semi-relevant: http://immigrationequality.org )
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.)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 06:30 pm (UTC)To your friends who might be interested in reading everything, and not just your and my comments, the original post is here:
http://chargirlgenius.livejournal.com/259895.html
And the post where I actually state what my position is on the issue of gay marriage (which wasn't involved in the original post) is here:
http://chargirlgenius.livejournal.com/260683.html
Have at.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 12:01 am (UTC)I did see your other comment in Char's journal. I understand what you believe your actual position to be on the issue of gay marriage. It looks like an endorsement of Jim Crow unions, but I believe you when you say that when you endorse civil unions you mean something quite different from existing unions. Fine.
I don't actually care much, one way or another, about your actual position. I was arguing with your statements. If your statements were totally at odds with your actual position, such that you feel completely misrepresented by having your statements addressed... that's a problem with your rhetorical style, not with me.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 04:38 am (UTC)So, you understand my position as not being separatist, and swipe at me for looking like a separatist to you anyway? hmmm.
And you have the same rhetorical process of using an example to make your point by using your story of Charles and Glen, but I am not clear because I used an example you didn't like? If I'm trying to make a point about two different sides, don't you think you're not going to like at least one of them? The statements you quoted were the example to prove the real point, not the point itself. You might consider caring more about people's actual positions because that's how they vote.
I am at a loss. We are on the same side on this and you're still determined not to be. I just don't think I'm the one with the problem here. Good luck with your grant proposal and your life. I'm outie.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-13 03:45 am (UTC)I understand the debate about abortion. I can understand the other side: they feel that people who are pro-abortion are killing children.
I do not understand the debate about gay marriage. The only people that it would effect are the gays who want to marry each other -- and a few people who create forms for the government. It wouldn't affect my marriage; it wouldn't affect anyone who's straight. And if someone isn't straight, it would increase their choices.