Religions

[RedQueen.exe]

I think you kind of highlight part of the problem. You're equating not condemning a woman for trading her kids food for drugs with not condemning someone for being gay, when the latter is a victim-less "crime" invented by religion.

Once you've said that homosexuality is a sin, you've now made the difference between you and those who would deny gays rights, or worse, merely one of tactics. You conflating it with activities which actually ARE harmful to others, provides a smoke screen for people who are willing to condemn homosexuals, isolate them, and generally make them miserable.

What I would much prefer the moderate religious say is that they don't condemn homosexuals because homosexuality doesn't hurt people, it doesn't impinge in any way upon the freedom of those that aren't gay.

I like the analogy that PZ Myers (and I believe Dawkins as well) give, that their aim is for religion to be like knitting or bowling. That it be like a hobby some people enjoy in privacy, or together, that has its own institutions, but doesn't inject itself into politics or wage divisive cultural battles over harmless behavior, or worse, actual battles.

From Effect Measure: http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2 ... te_104.php

So in the spirit of summer laziness, here's what I like about the knitting analogy: it suggests the conditions under which religion would be relatively harmless, maybe even useful. Knitting is a private, or at least personal avocation. Knitters don't want everyone else to be a knitter. They are satisfied to knit on their own or with other people who like to knit. A knitting club. It's social. Knitting is a way for many people to relieve tension, or, when times are tough, to occupy themselves. For these people, knitting is comforting. If you've ever seen the products of really good knitters, it can also be creative, so knitting is a source of creative inspiration. Knitting is socially acceptable. It doesn't set a knitter apart from their non-knitting fellow citizens. Whether you are a knitter or not isn't a matter of personal worth. It is assumed that knitters are just as good people as non-knitters.

In short, knitting is unobjectionable because it is kept personal, it is not the source of invidious distinctions, it can be fun and lead to pleasant social interactions, it is a comfort for many people, and is a source of creativity and even inspiration. If religion were like knitting, I wouldn't object to it.

Another part of this analogy that went mostly ignored here is that knitters don't demand respect that they haven't earned. You don't see top knitters being put on the news to give their commentary on foreign policy or women's reproductive rights. But for some reason, it is perfectly acceptable to use bishops and such as an authority over areas which they do not have any special expertise. Their expertise ends at the church door, and it should be treated as such.

[RedQueen.exe]

Also, the idea that the people being turds are misreading their holy book isn't really accurate I don't think. There are plenty of parts of the bible (and other holy books, if I am not mistaken) that call for action against sinners. They have their good parts and bad parts, and people seem to just focus on the parts that agree with the way that they want to act. The idea that there is only one correct interpretation is... odd, I think.

Take, for example:

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

[Addicted]

I just opted out. I deleted my reply and am happy not to participate.

[gejyspa]

Redqueen, so you must really hate me, because I put "man lying with a man in the manners of a woman" in the same category as eating lobster, or writing a letter on Friday night. Or maybe you don't, since I'm sure you put all those three acts in one category yourself. (Just not the same category as I do ). You make the claim that such acts are not harmful. But the claim that I, as a theist, make is that such acts are indeed harmful, in ways that we can't necessarily understand, in the same way that children can't understand why they can't just eat cookies for dinner every day.

....and a member of NAMBLA would make the claim that children can knowingly and willingly consent to sex acts, and under such circumstances, are perforce not harmed by them, but rather by the attendant secret-keeping, lying, societal-induced guilt, etc. accompanying them. Are they right? (is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law dealing with NAMBLA instead of Nazis?)

[RedQueen.exe]

I just opted out. I deleted my reply and am happy not to participate.

Shame, you had a good point there.

Redqueen, so you must really hate me, because I put "man lying with a man in the manners of a woman" in the same category as eating lobster, or writing a letter on Friday night. Or maybe you don't, since I'm sure you put all those three acts in one category yourself. (Just not the same category as I do ). You make the claim that such acts are not harmful. But the claim that I, as a theist, make is that such acts are indeed harmful, in ways that we can't necessarily understand, in the same way that children can't understand why they can't just eat cookies for dinner every day.

....and a member of NAMBLA would make the claim that children can knowingly and willingly consent to sex acts, and under such circumstances, are perforce not harmed by them, but rather by the attendant secret-keeping, lying, societal-induced guilt, etc. accompanying them. Are they right? (is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law dealing with NAMBLA instead of Nazis?)

Gah, I started reading this thinking you were going to make me happy, then the second paragraph ruined my hopes. And no, they are not right, because children are not old enough to consent, much in the same way we don't let them just opt to drop out of school and leave their parents house, let them drink, drive, or do any number of other things which might cause them harm before they have matured enough to understand the consequences.

Additionally, there are observable consequences to being molested as a child. There are measured age ranges when the brain begins to develop the means to tamp down its willingness to engage in risky behavior. Children are more likely to accept the authority of adults. For this and other reasons, children are a protected and vulnerable population and we put limits on what even their own parents are allowed to do to them and decide for them.

I don't particularly care if you think homosexuality, eating lobster, etc. is a sin, as long as you can tell the difference between these sins whose case for immorality relies on faith or revelation versus those which are amenable to reason. I sincerely doubt that either you or addicted believes that we ought to let convicted child molesters run free, or that we ought to lock people up for eating lobster. I don't believe either of you are really advocates for theocratic rule, and I sure hope you wouldn't be in favor of mob rule by majority, so I would hope that this is what you actually think. I just expect that religious people make a distinction between activities which their god says is a sin, and activities that harms some non-consenting population. If it doesn't harm others, but you believe it is a sin, then just don't do it yourself, but if it does harm others, then it is perfectly fine for you to condemn or even ask that laws prevent or discourage that behavior, according to severity.

[Chris]

But the claim that I, as a theist, make is that such acts are indeed harmful, in ways that we can't necessarily understand, in the same way that children can't understand why they can't just eat cookies for dinner every day.

Can you point me to where God said to someone that these practices are prohibited because they are harmful to the doer or others, as opposed to being prohibited because of God's whim or taste or sense of humor? What is the moral trustworthiness of a Being that has purportedly killed millions and ordered the Hebrews to annihilate whole tribes, including women, children, and animals? My impression is not of a divine version of the FDA or CDC, but rather of a Mafia don whose orders must be followed if you don't want to get whacked.

[gejyspa]

Grrr.. having to repost...

I just opted out. I deleted my reply and am happy not to participate.

Shame, you had a good point there.

Wish I had had a chance to read them

Redqueen, so you must really hate me, because I put "man lying with a man in the manners of a woman" in the same category as eating lobster, or writing a letter on Friday night. Or maybe you don't, since I'm sure you put all those three acts in one category yourself. (Just not the same category as I do ). You make the claim that such acts are not harmful. But the claim that I, as a theist, make is that such acts are indeed harmful, in ways that we can't necessarily understand, in the same way that children can't understand why they can't just eat cookies for dinner every day.

....and a member of NAMBLA would make the claim that children can knowingly and willingly consent to sex acts, and under such circumstances, are perforce not harmed by them, but rather by the attendant secret-keeping, lying, societal-induced guilt, etc. accompanying them. Are they right? (is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law dealing with NAMBLA instead of Nazis?)

Gah, I started reading this thinking you were going to make me happy, then the second paragraph ruined my hopes. And no, they are not right, because children are not old enough to consent, much in the same way we don't let them just opt to drop out of school and leave their parents house, let them drink, drive, or do any number of other things which might cause them harm before they have matured enough to understand the consequences.

Additionally, there are observable consequences to being molested as a child. There are measured age ranges when the brain begins to develop the means to tamp down its willingness to engage in risky behavior. Children are more likely to accept the authority of adults. For this and other reasons, children are a protected and vulnerable population and we put limits on what even their own parents are allowed to do to them and decide for them.

Wow, I don't really want to go down the road of arguing the case for pedophilia, but we certainly have had whole societies where the practice was normalized ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_ ... ent_Greece ) and some "victims" even waxed poetic about the relationships. (And again, we must, arguendo, distinguish between coercive (which are clearly harmful) and "consensual" acts). (OTOH, if you argue that they did suffer harm even if it wasn't (to use your word) observable in that society, then you are helping my case that there are acts that are supposedly victimless whose consequence is nonetheless harmful)

Anyway, don't particularly want to continue the argument that children shouldn't be protected, just giving you something to think about (that norms change, and therefore one can't definitively say, "the state of things as we think about them at this moment is the absolute truth, and will never be otherwise")

I don't particularly care if you think homosexuality, eating lobster, etc. is a sin, as long as you can tell the difference between these sins whose case for immorality relies on faith or revelation versus those which are amenable to reason. I sincerely doubt that either you or addicted believes that we ought to let convicted child molesters run free, or that we ought to lock people up for eating lobster. I don't believe either of you are really advocates for theocratic rule, and I sure hope you wouldn't be in favor of mob rule by majority, so I would hope that this is what you actually think.

I am not in favor of theocratic rule. As mentioned before, I don't even understand the fact that Xmas being a federal holiday isn't declared unconstitutional. So I certainly wouldn't legislate that you couldn't eat lobster.

I just expect that religious people make a distinction between activities which their god says is a sin, and activities that harms some non-consenting population. If it doesn't harm others, but you believe it is a sin, then just don't do it yourself, but if it does harm others, then it is perfectly fine for you to condemn or even ask that laws prevent or discourage that behavior, according to severity.

Meh. I could care less what (one or more) consenting people do behind closed doors. That's between them and their conscience and God (Assuming he exists, which I of course, do). I think that rather than talk about whether gay people should be allowed to marry, is wehther the state should recognize the instituion at all. Marriage is, after all, at root a religious rite. And despite the fact that the state has given it special recognition (taxes, insurance, testimony, etc.) and has non-religious versions, that fact doesn't change. I think what possibly ticks off religious people about gay marriage is that they see an institution as being "theirs" being co-opted by "others". It wouldn't surprise me to learn that civil marriage was similarly objected to when introduced (in the mid 1800s in England, and I believe earlier in the US, and still doesn't exist in about a dozen countries.) But of course the state has often meddled in marriage. The federal courts struck down anti-miscegenation laws that existed in many states (which were themselves a meddling). And of course the congress forced Utah to write anti-bigamy laws into their state constitution before accepting them as a state (and there's a puzzle right there, because not only is it between consenting adults, but unlike gay marriage, actually has a history of being acceptable to the Abrahamic religions until The Church outlawed it in 637 (although it was frowned upon for a few centuries previously)).

[RedQueen.exe]

I don't think we're terribly far off in our views, gejyspa, I'm just looking for clarity on the distinction for when people are justified in meddling to either stop or discourage wrongful behavior. This is why I state I don't believe you are a theocrat. But, I think the only alternative is that we base our laws and condemnation of behavior on reason, which is accessible to people of all faiths or none.

Anyway, don't particularly want to continue the argument that children shouldn't be protected, just giving you something to think about (that norms change, and therefore one can't definitively say, "the state of things as we think about them at this moment is the absolute truth, and will never be otherwise")

I don't claim to have all the answers right now, but I do think that we as a species are collectively getting smarter. It is most likely two steps forward, one step back, but slowly but surely we reason our way towards more consistent ethical codes and laws, and ones more likely to collectively raise our happiness and freedom.

It is a struggle. We kid ourselves into thinking we are rational creatures, but we are less of that and more of rationalizing creatures. We're very good at justifying our own behavior, and it takes a lot of persuasion, time, and effort to convince us otherwise. This is why, however, I have little patience for those that just throw their hands up and say "both sides lie/exaggerate/are crazy/etc." or act like all opinions are equal and we should all just get along... It is lazy, complacent, and dishonest. I could go into an entirely separate discussion on that.

Meh. I could care less what (one or more) consenting people do behind closed doors. That's between them and their conscience and God (Assuming he exists, which I of course, do). I think that rather than talk about whether gay people should be allowed to marry, is wehther the state should recognize the instituion at all. Marriage is, after all, at root a religious rite. And despite the fact that the state has given it special recognition (taxes, insurance, testimony, etc.) and has non-religious versions, that fact doesn't change. I think what possibly ticks off religious people about gay marriage is that they see an institution as being "theirs" being co-opted by "others". It wouldn't surprise me to learn that civil marriage was similarly objected to when introduced (in the mid 1800s in England, and I believe earlier in the US, and still doesn't exist in about a dozen countries.) But of course the state has often meddled in marriage. The federal courts struck down anti-miscegenation laws that existed in many states (which were themselves a meddling). And of course the congress forced Utah to write anti-bigamy laws into their state constitution before accepting them as a state (and there's a puzzle right there, because not only is it between consenting adults, but unlike gay marriage, actually has a history of being acceptable to the Abrahamic religions until The Church outlawed it in 637 (although it was frowned upon for a few centuries previously)).

So, it probably depends on which religious people you're talking about. I honestly think some portion of them find it "icky", and know that if gay people are allowed to marry, they're going to be forced even more than before to acknowledge their existence. Some, as you said, for some reason, find it denigrates "their" institution of marriage in a way that allowing those of other faiths, heathens, even convicted serial killers somehow doesn't.

That said, it sounds like you would favor one idea I've heard where the government would get out of the marriage business and give civil unions to couples whether straight, gay, whatever, and leave marriage to the churches. Homosexuals could always get married in a Unitarian church or the like, I suppose. I think this would be an acceptable solution, though it isn't one I see happening. A lot of these people want more religious meddling in government, not less. However, at this point we're kind of arguing semantics. There's no reason that any particular church, like the Catholic church for example, has to recognize a marriage they don't agree with as long as they're meeting any legal requirements (say for, employees of a Catholic institution) which they would still be required to meet for a couple whose protections were instead called a "civil union".

I'm not sure it really makes much difference one way or the other, so long as any type of couple is seen the same way under the law.

[gejyspa]

But the claim that I, as a theist, make is that such acts are indeed harmful, in ways that we can't necessarily understand, in the same way that children can't understand why they can't just eat cookies for dinner every day.

Can you point me to where God said to someone that these practices are prohibited because they are harmful to the doer or others, as opposed to being prohibited because of God's whim or taste or sense of humor? What is the moral trustworthiness of a Being that has purportedly killed millions and ordered the Hebrews to annihilate whole tribes, including women, children, and animals? My impression is not of a divine version of the FDA or CDC, but rather of a Mafia don whose orders must be followed if you don't want to get whacked.

Sorry, I meant to answer your questions before, but I when the system snafu'ed with my reply to Redqueen, I forgot. My bad.

Okay, so where are the prohibitions viewed as harmful to health and wellbeing? Well, here are some places where it says so (or the converse, that obeying the commandments lead to long life or other health benefits): Ex. 20:12, Deut. 22: 6-7, Deut. 11:8-9, Deut. 7:13-15, Deut. 4:40, Deut. 17:14-20 (although this may involve natural consequences of a revolt). But most of the time, we are enjoined to do things as "be holy because I am holy".

[gejyspa]

I don't think we're terribly far off in our views, gejyspa, I'm just looking for clarity on the distinction for when people are justified in meddling to either stop or discourage wrongful behavior. This is why I state I don't believe you are a theocrat. But, I think the only alternative is that we base our laws and condemnation of behavior on reason, which is accessible to people of all faiths or none.

No disagreement there. But the question of what consitutes "reason" is of course, debatable, or we wouldn't have different political parties with radically different opinions on (for example) economic policy. So the best we can do is explain our own rationalizations of our world view, whether our audience is in agreement with us or not.

I don't claim to have all the answers right now, but I do think that we as a species are collectively getting smarter. It is most likely two steps forward, one step back, but slowly but surely we reason our way towards more consistent ethical codes and laws, and ones more likely to collectively raise our happiness and freedom.

Possibly. (And of course, there's often times horrible backsliding, not just "one step". Fascism, Naziism, Stalinism, North Korea, radical Islam, etc. all in the past 80 years, despite it being millenia since Plato's "Utopia" and the invention of Athenian democracy, and living in a world with "enlightened" ideals).

It is a struggle. We kid ourselves into thinking we are rational creatures, but we are less of that and more of rationalizing creatures. We're very good at justifying our own behavior, and it takes a lot of persuasion, time, and effort to convince us otherwise.

+1, as they say.

Meh. I could care less what (one or more) consenting people do behind closed doors. That's between them and their conscience and God (Assuming he exists, which I of course, do). I think that rather than talk about whether gay people should be allowed to marry, is wehther the state should recognize the instituion at all. Marriage is, after all, at root a religious rite. And despite the fact that the state has given it special recognition (taxes, insurance, testimony, etc.) and has non-religious versions, that fact doesn't change. I think what possibly ticks off religious people about gay marriage is that they see an institution as being "theirs" being co-opted by "others". It wouldn't surprise me to learn that civil marriage was similarly objected to when introduced (in the mid 1800s in England, and I believe earlier in the US, and still doesn't exist in about a dozen countries.) But of course the state has often meddled in marriage. The federal courts struck down anti-miscegenation laws that existed in many states (which were themselves a meddling). And of course the congress forced Utah to write anti-bigamy laws into their state constitution before accepting them as a state (and there's a puzzle right there, because not only is it between consenting adults, but unlike gay marriage, actually has a history of being acceptable to the Abrahamic religions until The Church outlawed it in 637 (although it was frowned upon for a few centuries previously)).

So, it probably depends on which religious people you're talking about. I honestly think some portion of them find it "icky", and know that if gay people are allowed to marry, they're going to be forced even more than before to acknowledge their existence.

Sorry, I had mentioned "(and yes, outright homophobia)" in my original reply that didn't make it into the redo. Mea culpa.

That said, it sounds like you would favor one idea I've heard where the government would get out of the marriage business and give civil unions to couples whether straight, gay, whatever, and leave marriage to the churches. Homosexuals could always get married in a Unitarian church or the like, I suppose. I think this would be an acceptable solution, though it isn't one I see happening. A lot of these people want more religious meddling in government, not less. However, at this point we're kind of arguing semantics. There's no reason that any particular church, like the Catholic church for example, has to recognize a marriage they don't agree with as long as they're meeting any legal requirements (say for, employees of a Catholic institution) which they would still be required to meet for a couple whose protections were instead called a "civil union".

Unfortunately, semantics are very important on both sides of the debate (and there are plenty of liberal religious denominations other than Unitarians who happily perform same-sex marriages,of course -- Reform and Reconstructionist Judiasms, Episcopal Church in the US, UCC, Evangelical Lutherans, etc.) One merely has to read statements from activists who aver that calling it "civil union" is demaning and second-class. And they may have a point.

[Chris]

Okay, so where are the prohibitions viewed as harmful to health and wellbeing? Well, here are some places where it says so (or the converse, that obeying the commandments lead to long life or other health benefits): Ex. 20:12, Deut. 22: 6-7, Deut. 11:8-9, Deut. 7:13-15, Deut. 4:40, Deut. 17:14-20 (although this may involve natural consequences of a revolt). But most of the time, we are enjoined to do things as "be holy because I am holy".

I looked at the first couple of citations. Exodus 20:12 has prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and false witness. Certainly in line with health and well-being, but not uniquely based on faith. Earlier you said that some holy laws you accept on faith as being good for you, though you can't see how. With murder, etc., it is obvious how these actions can be harmful, and people don't need to belong to the same faith community (or any at all) to arrive at the same prohibitions. Also, the passage does not give the reason for the commandment. It just says, "don't do these things" — as opposed to, "don't do these things because they are bad for your health."

Deuteronomy 22:6-7 is about finding a nesting female bird, being allowed to take the eggs, but being prohibited from taking the female. It makes sense from a wildlife management POV: killing the mother birds could mean fewer eggs in the future. Both of my points above apply: (1) Judaism not required to accept the holy law as a reasonable practice; and (2) no explicit "it's good for you" reason given by God.

[gejyspa]

Sorry, different versions of the Bible break it up different ways. It's Ex. 20:11 in the Hebrew, but 20:12 in the KJV (at least according to the online source I'm using) "Honor your father and mother so that your days will be long ...", the exact same reward (long life) mentioned with regard to shooing away the mother bird (it's from the fact that these commands, one extremely difficult, one easy, having the same reward mentioned, the rabbis derive that one can't tell which coimmandments are more or less importnant to be observed, hence are all equally mandatory). Hence the converse, "don't do them, and your life won't be long"

But yes, Judaism does divide laws into those that are rationally able to be understood by anyone with a brain (don't steal, don't murder, etc.) called "mishpatim" (laws) and those that can't be comprehded rationally ("don't eat milk and meat together", "use the ashes of a red heifer to remove impurity of death"), called "chukkim" (statutes).

[RedQueen.exe]

No disagreement there. But the question of what consitutes "reason" is of course, debatable, or we wouldn't have different political parties with radically different opinions on (for example) economic policy. So the best we can do is explain our own rationalizations of our world view, whether our audience is in agreement with us or not.

Depends on what you mean. What is reason I don't think is debatable (maybe at the fringes). What is reasonable, however, is. I think the latter is what you're saying, and no objection there. I do think it is more than just spouting your rationalizations, however, it is also trying to take apart your "opponent's" arguments. It is easy to rationalize your own beliefs, but the general idea is that the opposition or any critical party will point out errors in reasoning. Observers then determine who makes the stronger case, and in cases with rare open minded people, the proponent of one side might even admit they have changed their mind.

Since I know a little bit about psychology from casual reading, what it seems actually happens with is that the people vocally making a case rarely just admit they were wrong at the end of an argument. That said, they do internalize it and may wind up changing their minds down the road. This usually happens slowly over the course of time. They need to convince themselves, but they'll only do that if they're exposed to the arguments. I think people look at the immediate effects of argument and conclude it doesn't make a difference in changing people's minds, and ignore the longer-lasting effects.

Changing minds does seem to work better when you cut out things that make people get defensive. It can be a tricky line to walk between really challenging someone or their arguments and keeping it impersonal.

Possibly. (And of course, there's often times horrible backsliding, not just "one step". Fascism, Naziism, Stalinism, North Korea, radical Islam, etc. all in the past 80 years, despite it being millenia since Plato's "Utopia" and the invention of Athenian democracy, and living in a world with "enlightened" ideals).

True, I think what happens is that "evil" often bubbles up and gets to some critical mass where the demand to stop it becomes enough to push through and put an end to it. Naziism didn't bubble up in a vacuum (and I'm sure you don't need to be told this), pogroms and anti-jewish bigotry and violence prior to WW2 set the stage.

More importantly, different cultures and regions of the world seem to make that progress independently, and we don't seem to learn from other culture's mistakes. Awfulness in one part of the world can make it seem like we aren't making progress. Also, sometimes there are horrible backslides, but I think the overall larger trend has been towards the better.

Unfortunately, semantics are very important on both sides of the debate (and there are plenty of liberal religious denominations other than Unitarians who happily perform same-sex marriages,of course -- Reform and Reconstructionist Judiasms, Episcopal Church in the US, UCC, Evangelical Lutherans, etc.) One merely has to read statements from activists who aver that calling it "civil union" is demaning and second-class. And they may have a point.

Oh I certainly think they do. I think from a legal perspective it needs to go all the way to being named exactly the same thing. If churches want to call what they do marriage and take it back out of the government's hands, leaving them strictly with the legal protections to be called "civil unions", I don't see that as a problem. I do see a problem with the government trying to do the same thing for homosexuals but just giving it a different name than what straight people have. I don't think they'll ever truly make it the same in that case and it will be very similar to the "separate but equal" policies of racial segregation in both intent and effective fairness in practice.

[gejyspa]

I do think it is more than just spouting your rationalizations, however, it is also trying to take apart your "opponent's" arguments. It is easy to rationalize your own beliefs, but the general idea is that the opposition or any critical party will point out errors in reasoning. Observers then determine who makes the stronger case, and in cases with rare open minded people, the proponent of one side might even admit they have changed their mind.

Since I know a little bit about psychology from casual reading, what it seems actually happens with is that the people vocally making a case rarely just admit they were wrong at the end of an argument.

Okay, then I won't expect you to

That said, they do internalize it and may wind up changing their minds down the road. This usually happens slowly over the course of time. They need to convince themselves, but they'll only do that if they're exposed to the arguments. I think people look at the immediate effects of argument and conclude it doesn't make a difference in changing people's minds, and ignore the longer-lasting effects.

Changing minds does seem to work better when you cut out things that make people get defensive. It can be a tricky line to walk between really challenging someone or their arguments and keeping it impersonal.

This is all very cool and insightful and fascinating. Thanks. I think you are right. (I'll have to ask my sister, who is a psychologist, and my son, who is studying to be one). And, of course, I have changed over the course of my life, too, as has my wife (for example, she wasn't brought up observant. I had told her before we got engaged that having a Shabbat observant and kosher home was a non-neogtiable to me, but what she did personally was her own business. To my vast surprise, she not only "went through the motions", but actually had a paradigm shift where she embraced not only the tenets but beliefs of Orthodox Judaism after studying them. (My changes have been more evolutioinary than revolutionary, otoh).)

More importantly, different cultures and regions of the world seem to make that progress independently, and we don't seem to learn from other culture's mistakes.

People rarely learn from another's mistakes -- ask any parent :-/

Unfortunately, semantics are very important on both sides of the debate (and there are plenty of liberal religious denominations other than Unitarians who happily perform same-sex marriages,of course -- Reform and Reconstructionist Judiasms, Episcopal Church in the US, UCC, Evangelical Lutherans, etc.) One merely has to read statements from activists who aver that calling it "civil union" is demaning and second-class. And they may have a point.

Oh I certainly think they do. I think from a legal perspective it needs to go all the way to being named exactly the same thing. If churches want to call what they do marriage and take it back out of the government's hands, leaving them strictly with the legal protections to be called "civil unions", I don't see that as a problem. I do see a problem with the government trying to do the same thing for homosexuals but just giving it a different name than what straight people have. I don't think they'll ever truly make it the same in that case and it will be very similar to the "separate but equal" policies of racial segregation in both intent and effective fairness in practice.

I think you have a good plan, but I don't think it will ever come to fruition.

[RedQueen.exe]

I think you have a good plan, but I don't think it will ever come to fruition.

Sorry, not sure which part is my plan, lol. Just straight up making marriage legally available to all is probably what is going to happen, IMO, and that is my preferred outcome. I'm just saying that I would be okay with the state only giving "civil unions" and leaving "marriage" up to churches, as long as marriage then in that case doesn't confer additional legal rights. I don't see that happening, but that's okay, as long as the former happens in its place.