Freedom from religion

[SaStrike]

As I mentioned, we are (at least in the modern world) past sexism and racism within religion, so not sure why you are using those as examples.

The reason I'm saying it isn't discrimination in regards to homosexuality is, most theists do not have an understanding of homosexuality (what it is and what causes it is not certain for me included, not just theists), so as the understanding grows, it will filter the homophobia out of the religion (hopefully). But forcing them while they grew up indoctrinated and thinking it is wrong doesn't seem fair. A lot of people take their religion seriously.

[Aroura]

As I mentioned, we are (at least in the modern world) past sexism and racism within religion, so not sure why you are using those as examples.

The reason I'm saying it isn't discrimination in regards to homosexuality is, most theists do not have an understanding of homosexuality (what it is and what causes it is not certain for me included, not just theists), so as the understanding grows, it will filter the homophobia out of the religion (hopefully). But forcing them while they grew up indoctrinated and thinking it is wrong doesn't seem fair. A lot of people take their religion seriously.

I disagree we are past it, but partly agree, as it's better.
In any case, how do you think we got past it? By allowing the Christians in the 60s and 70s the right to refuse service to those groups?
Or was it by forcing them, with secular laws, to do it?

Hint, it's the latter one.

---

Also, can I get a big LOL for someone thinking sexism has been weeded out of modern Christianity?! Really.

[SaStrike]

As I mentioned, we are (at least in the modern world) past sexism and racism within religion, so not sure why you are using those as examples.

The reason I'm saying it isn't discrimination in regards to homosexuality is, most theists do not have an understanding of homosexuality (what it is and what causes it is not certain for me included, not just theists), so as the understanding grows, it will filter the homophobia out of the religion (hopefully). But forcing them while they grew up indoctrinated and thinking it is wrong doesn't seem fair. A lot of people take their religion seriously.

I disagree we are past it, but partly agree, as it's better.
In any case, how do you think we got past it? By allowing the Christians in the 60s and 70s the right to refuse service to those groups?
Or was it by forcing them, with secular laws, to do it?

Hint, it's the latter one.

---

Also, can I get a big LOL for someone thinking sexism has been weeded out of modern Christianity?! Really.

In my opinion, it is clear that racism and sexism is "wrong" if it were attempted to be taught and passed down into religion, we got to that point with education and morality, just reason (maybe a bit of force)
Homosexuality is STILL a sensitive topic in religion because of lack of understanding. If it were to be taught that homosexuality is wrong, a child growing up would accept it without question since it is still a controversial topic in religion and not much is known about it.

Yes I agree with you that sexism can still be found in christianity, I don't mean it is completely eradicated. Those cases could be considered wrong or discrimination.

[Aroura]

I would say the majority of Christians either support Gay marriage, or are tolerant of it.
It is a minority throwing a fit.
But the majority Christians are defending the minorities right to throw that fit, and that is a problem.

The majority of Christians, I'm sure, also agree that racism and sexism are wrong. However, there still exists a minority, shrinking all the time one hopes, that do not. There exist, today, people that would outlaw mixed race marriage and female drivers (and female votes, btw), based on sincerely held religious beliefs. I can show you some Redit threads if you don't believe me.
The only thing preventing those people from acting upon those beliefs in their businesses is the law.

It doesn't matter if it's because of a lack of understanding. That seems an irrelevant point. Of course bigotry stems from ignorance.
Some people will continue to pass down their incorrect notions of race, sex and sexual orientation superiority. We can teach it in schools, on television, radio and via the internet, and some people will still grow up with bigoted notions.
We can't just wait for all people to naturally become comfortable with all other people. That isn't going to ever happen. We need to determine what we can and cannot tolerate, and enforce that to the best of our ability as a society.

I wanted to address the notion of being forced to bake a nazi rally cake as entirely missing the point. Hate groups are not protected, nor should they be. That really IS the point, is not protecting groups that are themselves intolerant.

[SaStrike]

Yes it's most likely the minority, but that can be expected, only a minority are crazy enough (I mean dedicated and sincere enough) to follow the religion properly. I still don't think they should be forced. Imagine you honestly thought you were going to hell for doing something against your religion, then are forced to do it anyway.

[Harry Nevis]

The government doesn't force anyone to operate a for profit business.   Those who choose to do so, must, however, adhere to all applicable laws..including anti-discrimination laws.  

It's not that hard, honestly.  Anytime someone thinks that jesus would want them to be a dick to someone, they can ignore that impulse and stay clear of breaking the law.  Most people don't have such a reliable indicator that they're breaking the law to begin with..so, thank christ, I guess?

Right,  you can practice your religion just dont expect to be allowed to make a living. Yeah, that's how a free society works. < sarcasm>

It IS how a free society works. You just want society to give even more preference to your beliefs than they already do.

[brewer]

No, it doesn't.  You think a ghost blesses one kind of marriage but not another.  That's not objective or essential.  You're angling for a justification for your predisposition to inequality.  Good luck.

I am making no references to religion, only civil law. What, according to you, makes a marriage distinct from other social institutions? What defining feature makes a marriage a marriage and not some other type of relationship? Stop with the distractions and blather.

Laws were enacted on behalf of/because of marriages to create a universal and easy social contract to protect one or both parties. There is nothing special about marriage contracts that individual contracts could not achieve. It's religions influence that has fucked things up by defining who can or can't qualify for the contract.

---

I think the answer Neo is looking for is the potential to have children.

Then functionally sterile people don't need a marriage contract? It is applicable to more that just procreation.

[Catholic_Lady]

MH, I don't know. It's not my argument, I was just saying That's what I thought his answer might be.

As for your first paragraph up top, your response to Neo, I'd like to point out that the Government also defines who can/can't get married (a person can't marry 2 people, a person can't marry a relative, etc). They just don't have the same standards as some religions for marrying in their church.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Laws were enacted on behalf of/because of marriages to create a universal and easy social contract to protect one or both parties. There is nothing special about marriage contracts that individual contracts could not achieve. It's religions influence that has fucked things up by defining who can or can't qualify for the contract.

I think the answer Neo is looking for is the potential to have children.

Then functionally sterile people don't need a marriage contract? It is applicable to more than just procreation.

Mh.Brewer, I do not disagree with anything that you said. I think you would see as much from a careful reading of my first post.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-52275-p...pid1661001

On the one hand, common and civil laws for marriage almost exclusively concerned issues surrounding the financial obligations of family members, child custody & guardianship, and rights conferred by virtue of blood relationship such as inheritance and legitimacy. On the other hand the religious issues of marriage centered on appropriate gender roles, sexual fidelity, and the spiritual status of the couple with respect to God and the religious community. For a long time there was no compelling need to draw out the implicit distinction between the religious and civil dimensions of marriage because they largely overlapped. In my earlier post, I tried to draw out the distinctions between the sacramental and civil aspects of a marital relationship.

As you noted, and I earlier stated, laws were enacted for convenience, such as tacitly recognizing religious wedding ceremonies as official civil contracts. Indeed there is, by and large, nothing about a marriage contract that could not otherwise be achieved by contracts between private parties. That functional equivalency is not the same as being identically, i.e. equal. The difference is that a marriage contract concerns issues of blood relation that are not part of any other type of contractual agreement.

The concept of marriage is deeply embedded in the Christian faith, perhaps more so than any other faith. People who say its all just "homophobia" are ignoring the rich allusions and symbolism that inform the Christian faith - the "Spirit and the Bride", the Song of Songs, the parables of the Bridegroom, husbands to loving their wives as Christ loved His church, etc. Believers see marriage first and foremost as a sacrament, one that reflects God's relationship with His Church. But they have tacitly accepted parallel state regulation of it with respect to civil matters because the definitions perfectly overlapped, except with regards to divorce which has no effect. Same-sex unions are not a perfect overlap because they are essentially and objectively different types of contracts. Advocates of marriage equality are not interested in the legal protections and rights. They want to force religious people to call things that are essentially and objectively different by the same name. Doublespeak, pure and simple.

Now if activists want to be spoilers and take away traditionally acknowledged civil obligations and privileges to heterosexual couples that are infertile, we can have that conversation. It should make no difference to believers; we will remain married in the eyes of the Lord. Maybe the solution is not to force believers to call things that are not marriages marriages, but to remove marriage entirely from civil discourse and make everything private contractual relationships. Of course that would never happen, so I see nothing problematic with calling things by their proper names and affording same-sex couple the same legal protections as those of marriage. But this rational compromise has been rejected by gay activists.

[brewer]

Laws were enacted on behalf of/because of marriages to create a universal and easy social contract to protect one or both parties. There is nothing special about marriage contracts that individual contracts could not achieve. It's religions influence that has fucked things up by defining who can or can't qualify for the contract.
Then functionally sterile people don't need a marriage contract? It is applicable to more than just procreation.

Mh.Brewer, I do not disagree with anything that you said. I think you would see as much from a careful reading of my first post.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-52275-p...pid1661001

On the one hand, common and civil laws for marriage almost exclusively concerned issues surrounding the financial obligations of family members, child custody & guardianship, and rights conferred by virtue of blood relationship such as inheritance and legitimacy. On the other hand the religious issues of marriage centered on appropriate gender roles, sexual fidelity, and the spiritual status of the couple with respect to God and the religious community. For a long time there was no compelling need to draw out the implicit distinction between the religious and civil dimensions of marriage because they largely overlapped. In my earlier post, I tried to draw out the distinctions between the sacramental and civil aspects of a marital relationship.

As you noted, and I earlier stated, laws were enacted for convenience, such as tacitly recognizing religious wedding ceremonies as official civil contracts. Indeed there is, by and large, nothing about a marriage contract that could not otherwise be achieved by contracts between private parties. That functional equivalency is not the same as being identically, i.e. equal. The difference is that a marriage contract concerns issues of blood relation that are not part of any other type of contractual agreement.

The concept of marriage is deeply embedded in the Christian faith, perhaps more so than any other faith. People who say its all just "homophobia" are ignoring the rich allusions and symbolism that inform the Christian faith - the "Spirit and the Bride", the Song of Songs, the parables of the Bridegroom, husbands to loving their wives as Christ loved His church, etc.  Believers see marriage first and foremost as a sacrament, one that  reflects God's relationship with His Church. But they have tacitly accepted parallel state regulation of it with respect to civil matters because the definitions perfectly overlapped, except with regards to divorce which has no effect. Same-sex unions are not a perfect overlap because they are essentially and objectively different types of contracts. Advocates of marriage equality are not interested in the legal protections and rights. They want to force religious people to call things that are essentially and objectively different by the same name. Doublespeak, pure and simple.

Now if activists want to be spoilers and take away traditionally acknowledged civil obligations and privileges to heterosexual couples that are infertile, we can have that conversation. It should make no difference to believers; we will remain married in the eyes of the Lord. Maybe the solution is not to force believers to call things that are not marriages marriages, but to remove marriage entirely from civil discourse and make everything private contractual relationships. Of course that would never happen, so I see nothing problematic with calling things by their proper names and affording same-sex couple the same legal protections as those of marriage. But this rational compromise has been rejected by gay activists.

Christians do not own the concept of marriage, religious or not nor the word itself. That just chaps your hide don't it. Christians do not have the right to deny other forms of marriage. So stick it. 

http://www.articleworld.org/Marriage
https://www.livescience.com/37777-histor...riage.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage