Illogic of Prop. 8

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I do recognize that some religions accept it. But if you were to add up the memberships of Islam, Judaism and Christians who belong to congregations that don't accept it, you would be talking about 99% of all "people of the Book." So the weight of the religious tradition behind marriage is pretty much all on the side that rejects homosexual behavior.

My point is that I assume that like gays who are raised Mormon, that vast majority of people who are gay and raised in some other faith will reject organized religion rather than seek out a denomination who accepts them. If you have rejected organized religion as all but the tiny minority who seek a new one out do, then what you desire is that trapping and ritual of a tradition that has rejected you.

Again, I don't say they aren't entitled to it. Maybe I lay to much emphasis on the religious. Perhaps it is a secular enough ritual now that it is really the imprimatur of societal approval that is at issue. I just think if I were gay I would not remotely care what any religion or government thought of my relationship. I would find the idea that I should want their approval demeaning. But that's just me.

Gays may not seek out a denomination, but many still strive for a level of spirituality in their lives. It may not be the spirituality that Mormons imagine, but it is very real to them. I would imagine that committing yourself to one person in the form of marriage would have spiritual meaning to a gay person despite not belonging to any denomination.

However, the main reason that gays want the right to be married is to increase their general acceptance in society, and I really can't blame them for wanting it for this reason alone.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I do recognize that some religions accept it. But if you were to add up the memberships of Islam, Judaism and Christians who belong to congregations that don't accept it, you would be talking about 99% of all "people of the Book." So the weight of the religious tradition behind marriage is pretty much all on the side that rejects homosexual behavior.

My point is that I assume that like gays who are raised Mormon, that vast majority of people who are gay and raised in some other faith will reject organized religion rather than seek out a denomination who accepts them. If you have rejected organized religion as all but the tiny minority who seek a new one out do, then what you desire is that trapping and ritual of a tradition that has rejected you.

Again, I don't say they aren't entitled to it. Maybe I lay to much emphasis on the religious. Perhaps it is a secular enough ritual now that it is really the imprimatur of societal approval that is at issue. I just think if I were gay I would not remotely care what any religion or government thought of my relationship. I would find the idea that I should want their approval demeaning. But that's just me.

In the USA, it is definitely not 99% of chrisitans, muslims and jews. It's more than 1% who allow it, I'm pretty dang sure.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I just think if I were gay I would not remotely care what any religion or government thought of my relationship. I would find the idea that I should want their approval demeaning. But that's just me.

Lots of black people ride in the back of the bus today some even ride in the front. In 1960 I bet lots of black people would choose to sit by their friends in the back of the bus since it was where they would be more comfortable. Thank goodness for Rosa Parks. In 20 years from now I bet most of society is grateful for those that pushed for gays to marry. It is symbolic of their acceptance in society, much like riding in the front of the bus is symbolic to blacks

Just my opinion.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Lots of black people ride in the back of the bus today some even ride in the front. In 1960 I bet lots of black people would choose to sit by their friends in the back of the bus since it was where they would be more comfortable. Thank goodness for Rosa Parks. In 20 years from now I bet most of society is grateful for those that pushed for gays to marry. It is symbolic of their acceptance in society, much like riding in the front of the bus is symbolic to blacks

Just my opinion.

I basically agree with your post previous to this one. This analogy falls down for me for the same reason my analogy wasn't very good: there really isn't anything analogous to this. Still, it somehow feels to me like hating Mom and Dad and wanting their approval all at once (there, I've tossed out another lousy analogy). :-)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Lots of black people ride in the back of the bus today some even ride in the front. In 1960 I bet lots of black people would choose to sit by their friends in the back of the bus since it was where they would be more comfortable. Thank goodness for Rosa Parks. In 20 years from now I bet most of society is grateful for those that pushed for gays to marry. It is symbolic of their acceptance in society, much like riding in the front of the bus is symbolic to blacks

Just my opinion.

I don't really want to wade into this discussion, but after reading this I did want to reiterate that I find the comparison of the gay man's plight to the black man's to be entirely specious.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't really want to wade into this discussion, but after reading this I did want to reiterate that I find the comparison of the gay man's plight to the black man's to be entirely specious.

says Tex to Matthew Shepard.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I am not a big opponent of gay marriage, I'm pretty indifferent to it actually. What I have never understood is why gays want the right to undergo a ceremony that is religious in character (I don't care that it is now secular, it is the codification of a religious tradition) when the religion(s) who are the basis for it have rejected them. Why not simply reject it all and have a new kind of relationship. To me, it is a little like leaving Christianity and then wanting to be baptized. I can't argue that you don't have a right to have someone baptize you if that is what you want, but what meaning does it have for you if you have rejected Christianity?

I am not telling gay people they can't be married, I just don't know why they want to be. Pseudo-acceptance by a tradition that rejects them? Maybe you can explain.

This is an ignorant post. It's only a ceremony to which religion holds title to the extent that everything merges into religion if you go back far enough. Marriage has existed in all societies of whatever religious background, pagan, buddhist, whatever. You could say the same thing about government or war. Marriage's evolution thus mirrrors that of our greater free society. The fact is today it is more often performed as a secular ceremony than a religious one. It is an institution thoroughly relugated by law.

They want to be married because they want to be a franchised part of society.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't really want to wade into this discussion, but after reading this I did want to reiterate that I find the comparison of the gay man's plight to the black man's to be entirely specious.

It isn't specious to those that are gay.

Why was it important for a black person to sit in the front of the bus? They could still ride couldn't they?

Why would a gay person want to marry? They can still have domestic partnerships can't they?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I am not a big opponent of gay marriage, I'm pretty indifferent to it actually. What I have never understood is why gays want the right to undergo a ceremony that is religious in character (I don't care that it is now secular, it is the codification of a religious tradition) when the religion(s) who are the basis for it have rejected them. Why not simply reject it all and have a new kind of relationship. To me, it is a little like leaving Christianity and then wanting to be baptized. I can't argue that you don't have a right to have someone baptize you if that is what you want, but what meaning does it have for you if you have rejected Christianity?

I am not telling gay people they can't be married, I just don't know why they want to be. Pseudo-acceptance by a tradition that rejects them? Maybe you can explain.

relationship and shoves it up the noses of those who think that a gay lifestyle is either immoral or unnatural.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

It isn't specious to those that are gay.

Why was it important for a black person to sit in the front of the bus? They could still ride couldn't they?

Why would a gay person want to marry? They can still have domestic partnerships can't they?

exactly.

Tex seems to support separate but equal. We all know how that went back in the day.