Will gay marriage be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election?

[Alcon]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

[Alcon]

So, linguistic tradition outweighs equality in front of the law?  Equality in name, yes, but it still makes the implication that a relationship is inferior, or at least different.

You know that I respect your view on this a lot more than the alternative you're mentioning (no recognition)...but, no, to me it isn't "good enough."  I know it's not out of bigotry though.

[Alcon]

Again, it's not just linguistic, Alcon. Please try to understand where we backward religious folk are coming from!

Marriage isn't a religious institution, and never really has been...are you really more offended by the truly traditional "marriage" (as an economic advantage) than between loving people of the same sex?  I guess I can't argue with you if your answer is "yes."

I also absolutely agree that there is more to marriage that financial and other benefits, which is exactly why I feel strongly about this.

Individual churches can decide what they consider "marriage."  Why not leave that up to the church and individual, and either give civil unions to all or distinguish "civil marriage" and religious marriage?

[Alcon]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

[Alcon]

I have to agree with Phil. He is totally right on this issue. If gays really are progressive as they claim, they should care less about the stupid wording of their equal rights and more about other progressive issues.

If it's stupid, why is it so damn important to defend?

I am not one of those sanctity of marriage people, I just think it is very unimportant and if gays want their rights so bad they should suck it up and deal with Civil Unions because the word Gay Marriage turns off many fundies and causes measures to fail.

You seem rather pissed off at the idea that they don't want institutionalized inferiority of their relationships.  I can understand disagreeing with it as a matter of pragmatism, but you seem angry about it.

[Alcon]

It's stupid that you feel that it suggests inferiority and needs to be changed. You're the one arguing that it's not good enough to just extend benefits. I find that silly. Let marriage be marriage and let gay unions be whatever the hell they want to call a gay union. As long as we're all getting the same government benefits, we should all be happy. Get off the high horse. Seriously.

I'm not arrogant or contemptuous about this.  I just feel strongly that it conflicts with my moral coda, and feel compelled to fight for it.

I guess we're going to have a fundamental disagreement over this.  You find the difference silly and negligible, apparently, but refuse to give in on it.  You simultaneously demand we accept that the definition of marriage is important (in that only we get to use it) and trivial (in that the gays should be satisfied with what they have).  It doesn't gel.  I don't like it.  I'm going to ride that high horse until I think things are right.

(No homo, naturally.)

[Alcon]

It's trivial in the sense that I don't understand why people who support gay unions insist that it be called marriage.

For the same reason, I imagine, you are bothered by the idea of your future relationship not being called "marriage."

The institution of marriage has been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman for ages and governments have respected that.

I don't care about tradition.  If it's not broke, don't fix it, fine.  I think it's broke.

I believe they should continue to do so and people shouldn't have a problem as long as gay couples aren't being denied the necessary benefits. I just don't see the injustice there and yet time and time again, even as a supporter of civil unions, a certain group of us are branded as homophobes who don't want equal rights. It's tiring.

I don't think you're a homophobe.  Honestly, I don't have the best "radar" on stuff like that, but I have never, ever once picked up bigotry vibes from you.  I think you're being fully earnest here.  I don't want to imply you're homophobic because I don't think you are.

[Alcon]

The gays can have the benefits all they want, but keep them out of my church. Marriage has and always will be first and foremost defined as a union between a man and a woman. Why they insist on coming into our churches and offending everyone in the process is beyond me. Why people defend them for having that right is beyond me. We can be intolerant if we want .. their practice is against almost every religion imaginable.

Yes.  How dare people offend me by disagreeing with my religion and requesting rights they believe they're entitled to!

This paragraph could be replicated verbatim, replacing gays with blacks.  That doesn't kind of freak you out?

[Alcon]

Uh?

The gays want to be able to get "married" for the same reason you give significance to the word "married."  It's not because you invest a lot of importance in the integrity of the word.  You're not that much of a grammarian.  It has some symbolic representation to you, and that is
why it matters to them.

And there's nothing broke about the name.

That is (as above) where I disagree.

Not saying that you think that but others do think it (even if they don't say it). Others in this thread basically said it.

Forget them.  They're trying to score cheap points (whoever they are)

[Alcon]

My religion doesn't preach against blacks. In fact, we have black members.

It was really more the "how dare they?" crap that I was addressing that towards.

Just because tradition doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean its that way for everyone. I think gays have the right to get the benefits that other married couples get, but why do they insist on calling it marriage?

I just told you the answer to "why."  Continuing to be perplexed doesn't really accomplish much.    You can disagree with that rationale, but it's not as absurd as you're making it out to be.

The very definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. They are trying to change the definition of a word.

Tradition has emotional value.  It does not have logical value beyond a correlary one.  There is nothing wrong with holding your traditions tightly -- until it impedes your ability to be morally conscious.

Please don't insinuate that I am a racist or a homophobe because I hold my religious beliefs close to me.

I doubt you hate gay people either, although I know you less.  I doubt you're racist either, honestly.  Why am I being forced to defend other people's slurs, which is what you're complaining about people doing to you?  I really don't think you're these things.

I can't stand it when people get all high and mighty and treat those with any beliefs at all as inferior or bigoted.

Please don't confuse lack of faith with lack of belief.

I don't think they're inferior.  In fact, you totally reject the plausibility of my beliefs while I at least entertain the possibility that yours might be true...I don't think I'm more "high and mighty" here.

[Alcon]

I doubt the wording means more than the actual benefits that they fight for.

That's a false dilemma.

I'm sure they can come up with a name for the union that has a special meaning to them.

I think the equivalence, and the normalization, holds a lot of value to a group that has been anything but equal and normal for so long.

[Alcon]

Hate to break it to you but forcing the government to call it marriage won't make it any more normal for many. Give them the benefits and let the government move on.

It will make the normalcy institutionalized.  I'm not arguing for the government to over-rule the people on an issue like this.  That makes me very, very uncomfortable.

I don't like bringing this back to racial stuff, but it's the best analogy I can make.  It's a "separate but equal" doctrine.  It may not have the same seething hatred beyond it, it may even be good-natured and in the name of Judeo-Christianity, but it's still separate-but-equal.  And for the same reasons.

[Alcon]

I don't see how it's unequal lawfully though. It's just the naming and it's being blown out of proportion.

You're missing my point.  There are really three options here.

1. Naming is important.  They're entitled to find it important, but you can't say they're "blowing it out of proportion."  Then, this is a battle between the importance to you and theirs, which comes down to your religious beliefs vs. their (valid) claim to equality.

2. Naming is not important.  You're entitled to say they're "blowing it out of proportion," but it's hard for you to argue that the (trivial) importance of the name outweighs their (irrational) emotional investment in the name.

3. I forget what the third is, because I'm an idiot and a tired idiot, but it will come to me.

It can't simultaneously be a trivial point to any rational person, and an important point to you.  If it's trivial, you have to explain why a trivial linguistic matter justifies denying equality -- however irrational the desire for that equality may be.

[Alcon]

I'm saying it's important to those of us that value the traditional definition. I don't know why that has to be so important to a group that would be granted the same benefits. I don't believe the government should be forced to view it as marriage just because thats the way gays want it to be.

But why do you value the traditional definition?  Why is what you value more important than what they value, so much that it justifies denying all-around equality?

Arguing that being granted benefits is just as important as what we call it is what is trivial. I've said that time and time again.

I did not say that.  The "importance leap" between non-recognition and civil unions is much greater than civil unions and marriage for me.  But that doesn't mean I think that it isn't still insufficient.

[Alcon]

I value it because that definition has meant something for straight couples. I don't know why a gay couple couldn't move on and recognize that they have a union that means something for them. Again, it's not about equality.

Not to be obtuse, but aren't you pretty much saying "excluding gay people is very important to straight people.  Why can't gay people just realize this and move on?"?

Doesn't that sort of answer itself?

[Alcon]

When gay people can reproduce (a major reason for many of us as to why marriage is between a man and a woman), get back to me.

Oh, so should post-menopausal or otherwise infertile women be disallowed from marrying too?

You keep mentioning things that marriage is traditionally...but then, when it comes to discluding heterosexual couples who do not match those definitions, you suddenly shy away.  It sounds less like you actually believe that is what marriage is about, and more like it's a rationalization for limiting it to heterosexuals.

(Edit: Or, I should say, that you do believe that marriage is about that, but you feel discomfort in disallowing heterosexuals who don't match your definition marital rights!  See where I'm going with this?)

Even accepting that "it's traditional" is a valid reason for not extending rights of equality, that doesn't make sense.

[Alcon]

Knew that one was coming. I said reproduction is a major reason, not the only.

So, reproduction is only a major litmus test insofar as it's something only heterosexuals can do...right?  Then it's extraneous.

Let's put it this way - my reasons, regardless of what they are, just be argued to be just as irrelevant as your's. Why do you believe gays should be "married?" Because they love each other and want to be with each other? Ok. What's stopping them from either of those things? What's stopping them from being in love and living together? Marriage is very important to many of us but, benefits aside, there is nothing stopping people from being just as happy together even if they aren't "married."

I assume you mean arbitrary, not irrelevant.

My decision requires some assumptions and beliefs -- every non-reflexive decision in the world is "arbitrary" if this one is.  Fundamentally, it goes like this:

Group A wants a right.  Does the negative effect on society outweigh the positive effects of allocating this right?

I recognize that there's a negative emotional impact on having to have society abandon traditions it's comfortable with.  That's a very difficult question, that could be used to defend a lot of things we find evil in contemporary society.  If not persecuting a small group made the societal majority feel worse, and the net effect was negative, would that make the persecution justifiable?  Personally, I think majoritarian society should err on the side of moral caution and equity.  That is, though, just me; you can default to tradition if you wish.  I think that has proven to be riskier.

[Alcon]

Not a right.

That's a definitional nitpick; "right" can mean either a power afforded by law or by ethics.  I was using it in the former sense.

Does nothing to address what I said.

You asked "why do you believe gays should be married?"  I answered your question, explaining how that belief fits into my moral sense.  How does that do nothing to address what you said?

[Alcon]

You asked "why do you believe gays should be married?"  I answered your question, explaining how that belief fits into my moral sense.  How does that do nothing to address what you said?

Haha, ok. Don't see where you laid out why gays should get married but whatever. We're not on the same page so this is pretty pointless now.

If it helps, Group A is gays and Group B is us (or the majority of us)

[Alcon]

I don't care if it's "appealing" or not. It's not the job of the Church to compromise ideals for that which is "appealing" to the masses.

(You edited your post, so these seems tangential, but it isn't)

I'm not sure why you're being so reactionary.  I know a closeted Catholic kid who essentially feels compelled to go into service to the Church because he'll never be able to have a meaningful relationship or children.  In fact, the official Catholic Church positions on the matter essentially say, suck it up, serve God, make God your wife.  What better way to do that?

Hundreds of Catholic priests in the U.S. have died of HIV.  Either they're shooting black tar heroin, many of them are closeted homosexuals attracted to the cloth to serve the only love they're allowed to have.  Not letting people ever physically express love is going to have repercussions in some instances, obviously.

[Alcon]

First thing first, I didn't edit my post.

Really?  I must have confused it with another.  Sorry.

Secondly, I don't see how my position is "reactionary." Whether it's this issue or any other, I don't believe my faith ought to change it's ideals to fit popular opinion. Sorry.

I'm not advocating popular opinion; I'm advocating what I consider moral.  I don't give a crap what proportion of the population agrees with me.

My official Church doctrines don't say for your friend to "suck it up and make God your wife." My Church doesn't tell your friend to join the priesthood to settle this. I am so very sorry that your friend has a warped way of viewing his vocation and has convinced you that that's what his Church wants.

Not literally.  Obviously I was being hyperbolic, but I'd suggest you look at the Cathechism on this matter.  Gay Catholics are called to "fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."  It says to spend a life of chastity and servitude to God.  That may not explicitly say "join the priesthood," but it's hardly discouraged.

In any case, in 1999, the Kansas City Star conducted a random survey of priests about sexual orientation.  The response rate was a lowly 27%.  Only 75% indicated they were heterosexual.  A few years earlier, a Franciscan priest in New Jersey conducted a similar survey with a much higher response rate.  There, about 45% indicated they were gay.

Overall, a cross-selection of estimates from various sources - conservative and otherwise - averages out to about a third identifying as consciously homosexual.  So, there's your "nonsense."

I'm especially saddened by the fact that you decided to use HIV deaths as a reason why there are gay priests, Alcon. I expect better from you. I suppose you're allowed to take this shots though since you're "pro gay."

What is that supposed to mean?  You're offended that I've said that HIV disproportionately affects the homosexual population, or you're offended that I assume that most of those cases were contracted through homosexual sex?

[Alcon]

Phil: Torie's source is almost certainly the Crangle (New Jersey) study.

[Alcon]

I don't have much time to continue this conversation, and you're getting into angry mode again, Phil, so I'm going to phase out my participation in this topic:

1. That's not the only survey out there, and there are no serious estimates that I'm aware of that don't indicate over-representation of homosexuals in the priesthood.

2. I wasn't trying to prove that the Catechisms compelled gays to the priesthood, but that their guidelines suggest chastity and service to God for homosexuals, which may lead a disproportionate many to the priesthood, while heterosexuals would prefer marriage.

And:

I'm offended that you are allowed to basically say that HIV/AIDS is a gay man's disease. Now if the distinguished former Senator Santorum or I suggested anything like that...

It's not a gay man's disease.  It's a disease that disproportionately affects gay men.  I don't understand why you feel compelled to insinuate homophobia on my part after I've gone out of my way to make it clear I don't feel that from you.  If you genuinely thought that was a homophobic comment, I don't really know what to say.  It wasn't.  I thought you knew me enough to know it wasn't.

[Alcon]

This post misunderstands chastity and the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church considers themselves guardians of the teachings of Christ.  The problem is that you are looking at everything with a 'tolerance' angle.  The Church tolerates gays, but it does not encourage homosexuality, just as it does not encourage other sins such as gluttony, sloth, greed, et cetera.  It is interesting that there are no modern activists advocating changing those sins.  Indeed, if it were not for the Church's views on sexuality then it would not be so attacked.

Nothing in my post misunderstands that.  I'm aware that your moral belief is whatever the religious text you believe dictates to you.  That doesn't mean that, if I find that wrong, I won't use humanist reasoning to point out my disagreement, because that's the origin of my moral beliefs.

What would I say to a gay Christian?  I would say, stop sinning.  Everyone struggles with sin, some more than others, but indulging in sodomy is a choice, just as being angry is a choice, eating to excess is a choice, and hitting someone is a choice. 

Coming against from my secular moralism, I see where you're coming from, but I will point out that all of your other examples are also wrong in the conventionally secular sense.

Being a Christian is also a choice.  If they disagree with what the Bible has to say on sexuality, then they are free to leave.  It is easy to belong to a religion when you agree with everything it has to say.

I thought it was faith that was important, not mortal "agreement" and thought and everything.  I thought you were supposed to teach people to overcome their skepticism.  I guess eventually, if something gives, something gives, eh?

When people say that the Church ought to change its position to match a modern view, I am reminded of the Bible's teaching to be "in the world but not of it".  Though others may be captivated and enticed and enslaved by sin, the Church will stay firm - for it was built on a rock.

Pretty.

I suppose that sort of symbolic prettiness is a distraction from things which, were you not bound by the religious teachings you've chosen to accept, you would find rather ugly.

[Alcon]

I would still have the moral beliefs that I have now. I was always taught and truly believe that as a Catholic, I believe in something because I'm human. That's how we are taught to believe.

If you weren't a Catholic, you would still be a Catholic because you were taught to be?  Sorry, what?

Of course you believe in something because you're a human.  Everyone believes in something.  I guess I'm missing your point.