Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

As already hinted by others on this thread, it does look like a case of divorce being a situation we could find ourselves in so relaxing the law is OK, but gayness is something we would never do so full rigour should be retained.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But that decision wasn't mine to make...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Actually it is very different. A divorce, being a sin, can be repented of and forgiven.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Same-sex sexual relationships are ongoing, with no admission of sin, no repentence, and thus no forgiveness. This is more like a person engaged in serial marriage/divorce, as opposed to a one-time thing.

---

Umm, no it's just like someone engaged in a marriage, and we don't expect them to seek or need forgiveness. Why is the anti brigade always trying to make the most unflattering comparisons possible, and taking such pains to avoid likening these relationships to the ones they are in fact most alike with? Unless you attribute a far greater metaphysical weight to genitalia than is remotely justifiable on the basis of a Christian anthropology there is no reason to say that an "ongoing, unrepentant" relationship's morality depends on chromosomes.

Serial same-sex relationships are to serial heterosexual marriages as monogamous, life-long same-sex relationships are like similar heterosexual unions. Comparing the former in the second couplet to the latter in the first rather than presenting the correct analogy only engeders the suspicion that the "trad" view relies on faulty logic.

[ 27. January 2011, 17:25: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not saying that divorce isn't wrong, so you're pushing at an open door here.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
No, I'm using the Biblical passage to explain my sense of obligation to Biblical standards of sexual morality; it has nothing to do with civil law. Because I believe God defined marriage (as opposed to civil unions) as 'one man, one woman, for life' means that I cannot support the political effort to redefine marriage. Our society is going to do what it's going to do and probably within a decade same-sex marriage will be a fait accompli; I have no power over that except for my one vote and my voice, in whatever small way, as a person who says, "uh, maybe this isn't such a good idea."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
After all, when I was a child it would have been nonsensical to pass laws that defined marriage as one man, one woman; it had never occurred to the vast majority of Americans that it might ever need to be discussed, much less legislated.

---

Not least because a combination of criminalisation and persecution of homosexuals for what they were kept them in their proper place. Oh, the good old days!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I didn't ignore your point, Lynn - I was talking about mostly-unacknowledged irony that the religious right uses the Biblical prohibition against divorce to work to make same-sex marriage illegal - but hasn't tried to do anything similar about divorce itself. The second clause is the point of the thing, not the first.

It seems that you don't see, or believe, that your vote against SSM imposes your personal religious views upon me and other gay people. I'm not sure why that is; after all, nobody will force you to marry a woman - but I might want to! IOW, a vote against has no consequences for you.

---

quote:

---

I really don't think it's terrible to argue against "redefining marriage" from a cultural/political/societal point of view, BTW. It's true that we should think and talk about it openly. I just don't accept your particular argument (that we're "re-defining something that God has defined") as valid. It's a sectarian religious point of view with which I don't agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
So, to give this a rather hellish turn, it is rather convenient to you as a conservative divorcee that the conservatives accept that they've lost the legal battle on divorce.

---

Not really, as I would rather have not got divorced at all! But that decision wasn't mine to make...

quote:

---

As already hinted by others on this thread, it does look like a case of divorce being a situation we could find ourselves in so relaxing the law is OK, but gayness is something we would never do so full rigour should be retained.

---

Again, I can only speak for myself, but nothing could be further from the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
No, I'm using the Biblical passage to explain my sense of obligation to Biblical standards of sexual morality; it has nothing to do with civil law. Because I believe God defined marriage (as opposed to civil unions) as 'one man, one woman, for life' means that I cannot support the political effort to redefine marriage. Our society is going to do what it's going to do and probably within a decade same-sex marriage will be a fait accompli; I have no power over that except for my one vote and my voice, in whatever small way, as a person who says, "uh, maybe this isn't such a good idea."

---

Ah. Fascinating.

You see, in a great many countries, where they don't mix up civil marriages and religious marriages in the one ceremony, you would probably be a lot more willing to do what you like with the religious ceremony and leave the civil ceremony the hell alone.

Even with your one vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have another question of the anti-gay respondents here.

---

quote:

---

We all know your arguments for opposing same-sex marriage.

What is your moral opposition to gay partners having the right to share partner benefits?

In my state legislators have tried to punish state-funded organizations like state universities who have offered health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners.

What is your theological justification for thinking that this is a good and righteous act on the part of these legislators? We're not talking the M word or even the CU word -- we're talking about employees being able to share their benefits, pensions and other work benefits with their partners? Why is Jesus smiling at this, in your view? Remember -- I want theological justification.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not saying that divorce isn't wrong, so you're pushing at an open door here.

---

You kind of are, though - if it's wrong, it's wrong in a very abstract kind of way without any actual ramifications for your life. I assume that you are a communicant, for instance, and that upon your death your church will consent to bury you.

---

quote:

---

These are things that gay Christians in many denoms cannot count on, which rather weakens the protest that gays are not being singled out any more than other supposed sins. Your acceptance of sinfulness on a purely intellectual level notwithstanding, your second marriage can't be that wrong if you have no plans to "repent" of it.(Or, if it is wrong, it is clearly a wrong that you have concluded, using your conscientious discretion, is the least wrong option feasibly available to you in our fallen world and the particulars of your situation - a privilege you would not extend to your gay brethren. One rule for you, indeed).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I came across a rather obscure commentary from the 2nd century AD which said, in effect, that if the adultery was ongoing and the injured party failed to either divorce the adulterer or at least acquiesce in the fact of that divorce, then s/he was sinning by effectively aiding and abetting that adultery.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have another question of the anti-gay respondents here.

We all know your arguments for opposing same-sex marriage.

What is your moral opposition to gay partners having the right to share partner benefits?

In my state legislators have tried to punish state-funded organizations like state universities who have offered health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners.

What is your theological justification for thinking that this is a good and righteous act on the part of these legislators? We're not talking the M word or even the CU word -- we're talking about employees being able to share their benefits, pensions and other work benefits with their partners? Why is Jesus smiling at this, in your view? Remember -- I want theological justification.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I had the name of Papias in mind but that can't be right because he was a disciple of John not Matthew

---

quote:

---

And I said to him, "Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But isn't that the nature of living in a democracy? The votes of the majority carry and have an impact on the minority. Believe me, there are a lot of times (hmmm - possibly most of the time) where the vote doesn't go the way I'd have liked; I'm not sure why that should be any different with this issue than, say, who is president or senator or governor, etc.?

As for fighting to change the attitude toward divorce, I do that within my church but I don't think we're likely to undo the "no fault" divorce laws which have been so very destructive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I echo Matt on this one. It may appear to be self-serving (and, in some cases, it may actually BE self-serving) but appearances are often deceiving. It takes two people in agreement to marry and, in much of the "civilized" world, it only takes one to divorce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Oh, totally. I've argued for that (not on this thread but IRL): make all religious marriages just that and if a couple wants whatever civil benefits might accrue from marriage (depending on the tax code, marriage may actually be more expensive; this changes from time to time) then get the civil marriage license and do that, too. I don't think it's optimal but I think it may be the most workable solution, at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Does anybody on this thread oppose offering those benefits to partners in civil unions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't have a theological basis for denying said benefits; I don't argue against said benefits. I argue against redefining marriage.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think it means the following:

1. If you discover your wife is having an affair, you have a duty to divorce her, otherwise you are complicit in her adultery.

2. However, you are not free to remarry and must have her back if she repents.

I think...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.

---

No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates But I think it's a bit disingenuous if you argue that the state has to rely on something other than "tradition" when holding to marriage as defined through human history; it is very much the pro-same-sex-marriage side that is pushing to change the fundamental definition of an institution. I realize it works well for those who wish to push the change to be aggressive and try to make the status quo defend the status quo instead of presenting a compelling argument for the change.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Oh, totally. I've argued for that (not on this thread but IRL): make all religious marriages just that and if a couple wants whatever civil benefits might accrue from marriage (depending on the tax code, marriage may actually be more expensive; this changes from time to time) then get the civil marriage license and do that, too. I don't think it's optimal but I think it may be the most workable solution, at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.

---

Hmmm, you've radically suggested . . . the exact system already in place in the U.S. A religiously ordained marriage is not considered legally binding unless also registered with the state government. For example, despite what a Catholic priest might say a remarried divorcée is legally married in the eyes of the state.

People who argue about the need to "protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage" are usually arguing in bad faith or trying to spin fantastical scenarios to muddy the issue. All they have to ask is "how many Roman Catholic priests have been punished by the state in the last decade for refusing to marry someone with a divorced spouse still living?" The correct answer (zero) is well known enough that horror stories of the state punishing non-conforming clergy (at least in the U.S.) are so implausible that they can't be taken as seriously offered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Does anybody on this thread oppose offering those benefits to partners in civil unions?

---

There are certainly a lot of Americans who argued in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, many of whom did on an allegedly theological basis, especially the intellectually dishonest "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't have a theological basis for denying said benefits; I don't argue against said benefits. I argue against redefining marriage.

---

The problem is that the practical steps usually taken "against redefining marriage" just coincidentally happen to also involve "denying said benefits" (e.g. DOMA). This happens so consistently that dismissing it as coincidence is almost as unbelievable as various clergy not understanding the law relating to their profession enough to believe the "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" lie.

---

quote:

---

But, as a sociologist I can propose a hypothesis, and as a concerned citizen a recommendation. Hypothesis: There will be cultural and political compromises in the area of sexual behavior. Recommendation: In a democracy these matters should be openly and extensively discussed.

---

Posted                       

• ye bible sayeth
  erm
  so there

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The idea that there is a single traditional definition of marriage is so ludicrous (to anyone who has studied cultural anthropology, at least) that it's hard to respond to it succinctly. So I won't bother.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The idea that there is a single traditional definition of marriage is so ludicrous (to anyone who has studied cultural anthropology, at least) that it's hard to respond to it succinctly. So I won't bother.

---

I have also studied cultural anthropology and I do not remember any culture in which marriage was other than male + female. Age of consent varies, how many marriages a man (and occasionally a woman) might have simultaneously varies, who is authorized to give consent to a marriage (father, church, state, bride or groom) - the consistent part has been male + female. Lots of cultures in which same-sex relationships are tolerated and even approved - but they weren't considered marriage.

IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.

---

No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But I think it's a bit disingenuous if you argue that the state has to rely on something other than "tradition" when holding to marriage as defined through human history; it is very much the pro-same-sex-marriage side that is pushing to change the fundamental definition of an institution. I realize it works well for those who wish to push the change to be aggressive and try to make the status quo defend the status quo instead of presenting a compelling argument for the change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
People who argue about the need to "protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage" are usually arguing in bad faith or trying to spin fantastical scenarios to muddy the issue. All they have to ask is "how many Roman Catholic priests have been punished by the state in the last decade for refusing to marry someone with a divorced spouse still living?" The correct answer (zero) is well known enough that horror stories of the state punishing non-conforming clergy (at least in the U.S.) are so implausible that they can't be taken as seriously offered.

---

I don't know "Pastor Joe" and I doubt if he'll get arrested - but he may well be sued, at least according to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Do you know if this situation has been reversed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But I don't think there's any basis for thinking that changing the definition of marriage won't have long term significant impact:

quote:

---

But, as a sociologist I can propose a hypothesis, and as a concerned citizen a recommendation. Hypothesis: There will be cultural and political compromises in the area of sexual behavior. Recommendation: In a democracy these matters should be openly and extensively discussed.

---

So the good news is that we're discussing it.

---

Posted                      

• Polyamory is not analogous to same-sex marriage; gay people want to marry only one person. (And "polyamory" is not a legal arrangement in any case; it's merely an idea. I'm not sure what "legal problems" the writer is referring to, and he doesn't offer any - but it's not the same thing as polygamy, so it's a bit hard to understand how these problems can be as extensive as he claims they are.
• There's no same-sex marriage in Germany anyway! So quite obviously it does not "cause" polyamory. (Nor does same-sex marriage -> polygamy; polygamy is an ancient - and Biblical - arrangement.)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Still waiting to see a general connection between granting same-sex partners things like employee insurance benefits/hospital visitation and hospital privileges -- things that can and have been granted without getting into marriage/civil union issues -- is acting in opposition to God's will. So far not one person -- not ONE -- has been able or willing to directly address my question.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.

---

Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?

Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Still waiting to see a general connection between granting same-sex partners things like employee insurance benefits/hospital visitation and hospital privileges -- things that can and have been granted without getting into marriage/civil union issues -- is acting in opposition to God's will. So far not one person -- not ONE -- has been able or willing to directly address my question.

And yet the Religious Right in the United States has made punitive legislation against same-sex couples' attempts to obtain these simple protections part of their assault against the gay community.

So it must be important; right? There must be some connection between my being able to make medical decisions for my partner if she's incapacitated, or being able to share her health benefits, and the will of God in the world; right? Or else the Religious Right wouldn't be targeting these sorts of extra-marital legal rights/protections; right?

Still waiting patiently for the godly to explain this to me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.

---

Everyone always quotes early-modern Albania where there were some circumstances in which a woman could legally count as a man, or (probably much more rarely) the other way round but its more complex than that - it was really about property rights and (being Albania) family revenge rather than sex. It seems that the people who did it mostly lived as celibates, although there were circumstances in which they could be legally married.

But I think you are right. Basically marriage in some form or other has existed in every human society ad a legal status in which any child a woman has is assumed also to be the child of the man (or very, very, very, rarely men) she is married to. So the idea of two men marrying each other would have seemed to pretty much everybody in human history somewhere between meaningless and pointless.

I think there have been societies in which one of the reasons exclusively homosexual men were disapproved of was precisely that they didn't get married and so evaded their social duty to support women and children.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The Nayar constitute another major challenge to Western concepts of marriage, and the anthropological attempt to define it as a cultural universal.

---

Nonexistent link. Please fix

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn Maudlin
No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates

---

I guess that's where we differ. I don't see limited government or respect for individual liberty as "flaws". I see those things as the primary advantages of the system.

---

quote:

---

The problem here is that you're not defending "marriage as defined through human history", which was a hierarchical institution with the husband in a superior position, legally and socially, to that of his wife/wives. Marriage has been radically redefined over the past century (at least in the West) as an equal partnership, something that had never existed before and runs counter to Biblical ordinance. I'll believe Christians are serious about "traditional marriage" when they start agitating to reinstate coverture laws.

---

quote:

---

No, that link offers no actual information, just a bunch of fearmongering JAQing off.

---

quote:

---

Except that Canadian marriage commissioners are agents of the state, not private religious actors like a priest or rabbi. Their job is to provide a specific government service (civil marriage) to anyone who qualifies and requests it. Importing their own private religious beliefs into the operations of the state seems dangerously unworkable, like refusing to perform inter-racial or inter-faith marriages or the marriages of the previously divorced on religious grounds. You're allowed to do that if you're a religious celebrant, but not if you're representing the government.

---

quote:

---

Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So no one can explain to me the theological underpinnings of the political urgency on the part of religious conservatives to deny partnered employees of state-funded organizations, or partnered employees of any organization, pension, healthcare and other protections; or to deny partners the right to make their own decisions about things like hospital visitations.

Not talking marriage. Not talking state-sanctioned civil unions. Just talking having the legal option to share one's work benefits with one's partner and to otherwise protect one's partner legally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.

---

Nope. There's a thread somewhere about this case. Bottom line is that obeying the law trumps breaking the law, and that public servants paid to administer the law either do their jobs or get out. No-one's freedom of religion is being infringed in this case.

You've got this dead wrong.

---

quote:

---

Bullfrog. said:
I think, for older conservative Christians who have in a sense staked their soul on this Christian teaching, it must hurt like hell. The church that you grew up with, the social boundaries by which you recognized yourself as saved, and your families as saved, is dissolving before your eyes. Even for a comparatively humble person, it's something to see; and if you're even slightly proud, it's a huge pill to swallow. In a sense it's the fall of Dixie all over again, and I think that analogy still resonates with a lot of people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So the individual liberty of "public servants paid to administer the law" whose religious sensibilities are *now* offended because the law has changed, those individual liberties don't matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
My argument has been not for a particular human tradition of marriage but for the core that Jesus presents and attributes to the Father; that didn't include coverture laws any more than it included racial restrictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you.

---

I dispute the charge of legal discrimination insofar as marriage is concerned: marriage entails both sexes and actually doesn't have a bearing on sexual attraction; many homosexuals have married over the years and those were completely legal marriages.

---

quote:

---

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So no one can explain to me the theological underpinnings of the political urgency on the part of religious conservatives to deny partnered employees of state-funded organizations, or partnered employees of any organization, pension, healthcare and other protections; or to deny partners the right to make their own decisions about things like hospital visitations.

Not talking marriage. Not talking state-sanctioned civil unions. Just talking having the legal option to share one's work benefits with one's partner and to otherwise protect one's partner legally.

---

LutheranChik, has anybody on the thread argued that? I haven't. My argument is specifically with the redefinition of "marriage," not civil unions and not benefits.

---

Which is essentially arguing "I'm not in favor of discrimination, I just don't think the law should treat them the same."

As I noted previously, marriage is an arrangement under civil law in the U.S. Religious organizations can operate under whatever marital definitions or restrictions they like (e.g. the Roman Catholics can refuse to recognize re-married divorcées, the Christian Identity folks can refuse to recognize the marriages of non-whites, etc.), but that opinion has no bearing on whether or not a marriage is legal, which is what same-sex marriage proponents are advocating and what opponents are arguing against. Once again, the idea of churches being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies would be less likely than being able to force a Roman Catholic priest to marry someone previously divorced. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the same-sex marriage threat is so real when the divorce one has never materialized.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I suppose there are "older conservative Christians" that fit your description and dilemma, described above, and maybe it's just living and worshiping in generic 'Hollywood,' but I can't think of anyone I personally know that fits this. For me, it genuinely is concern about going in and mucking about where God has said XYZ. I recognize that not everyone thinks God said XYZ and that's fine, that's between them and God, just as my position is between me and God; there's a 'watchman on the wall' quality to it. One can argue this is all part of the appropriate separation of church and state and if the state decides to redefine marriage, so be it. I will hope that my concerns prove baseless.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I've fixed it for Timothy in the original post now.
cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:


Also please note that this thread has veered very far off course: the OP question is

quote:

---

I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.

---

---