Even Churches Need to Grow Up

"Whether gay relationships should be called marriage has nothing to do with religion but with what makes sense for society at large. It two things are different then it can cause harm to call them by the same name."

Actually, it has *everything* to do with religion. The legal definition of civil marriage has nothing to do with the sexes of the people involved, except that the government can't discriminate against anyone based on their sex.

That's why it's not LBGT people who have felt the need to 'change the definition of marriage,' ...in fact it's the anti-gay people who have *actually introduced* legislation to try and *make it legal* to define marriage as only for straights.

The legal definition of marriage didn't specify before. You just didn't like it when people called for an end to discrimination. So *you* 'redefined civil marriage.' Just because you did it to fit a previously-existing sense of exclusive entitlement to power over others doesn't mean you didn't do it.

The law also *can't stop you* from refusing to *call* my marriage a marriage, you just have to treat us as equal citizens and our contracts as equally valid under the law.

You'll be able to continue to run around claiming that our marriage isn't *real,* you'll just have to accept that it's your personal choice to do so.

Your SUV metaphor is actually kind of backwards: they are classed as light trucks because they *are* light trucks, subject to lower environmental standards than the equivalent station wagon, on the *presumption* that the 'Definition of a light truck' is something used for *work and hauling things.* Even if the popular 'definition' of a passenger vehicle is 'something comfy to drive around in' ...certain types get sold an idea they're entitled to waste gas as though it were really a work vehicle, cause it's 'defined' as one.

In similar vein, some people think they're entitled to a 'definition of marriage' which gives them the bennies that they claim are about the idea they look like a couple that might procreate, even if they never do.

Accordingly, the law might impose a 'gas guzzler tax' on an old Country Squire that I use for a cabinetry business, while someone who drives a chrome-plated Humvee to go clubbing (or the company that made em) get half the exemptions of a farm vehicle.

If you want to start to say 'There's good reasons for that, after all, your station wagon doesn't *look* like a virtuous hardworking vehicle, while the Hummer which is never used for the purpose *does,* so 'society can't encourage your gas-guzzling dissolute ways...'

Well, again, you're getting it backwards.

In the Name of God!

This is the one clear distinction that I would like to make:
The hatred of gays is of Man, not of God. Straight Society justifies the imposing of impunity using religion. The real reason fot this is their own personal disgust with our practices (I would certainly be disgusted to be forced to do the other). They are not carrying out the desires of any god. Jesus did not harm, harrass, ridicule, beat, kill, fire from a job, or withhold financial equality or govennmental benefits form Mary Magdaline?

What else do you justify doing in the name of God?

As a retired United Methodist minister, it seems to me that the major obstacle to a fuller liberation of the gay community in this nation is due to a conservative form of Christianity. How sad it is when fundamentalist preaching coaxes worshippers
to leave their powers of reasoning at the door of a church upon entering.

As a retired United Methodist minister, it seems to me that the biggest obstacle to a fuller liberation of the gay community is due to conservative religious dogma. How sad it is when conservative preaching coaxes worshippers to leave their powers of reasoning at the door of a church upon entering.

Alex,
That's just JJ - ignore him.

When I think of the many important and influential people in my life who were gay and lesbian, it hurts to think that anyone or institution would cause harm or slight to who they are. That many churches struggle with recognizing the civil rights and basic humanity of gays and lesbians is further evidence that the church is often less humane than secular institutions offering support for those out of the mainstream. Dr. Silverman is correct in calling on churches to "grow up."

fr homeland1:

>...Hugggs & a Kiss-ims, To ALL, EVERY & ALL Da...

What? Translation, please.

Very good article by Professor Silverman. There's not much for me to add, but say that Herb is right on target with this column (and that I really enjoyed the George Bernard Shaw quote posted in one of the comments).

Gays are people and have a right to be treated with respect and courtsey.

Whether gay relationships should be called marriage has nothing to do with religion but with what makes sense for society at large. It two things are different then it can cause harm to call them by the same name.

Pretending that SUVs are cars has caused a lot of harm since they are actually trucks, they are a threat to other vehicles and they burn gas like there is no tomorrow.

If the laws suitable to gay relationships are LIKE those suitable to hetero ones, then gay relationships should be called marriage.

If the laws suitable to gay relationships are different from those suitable to hetero relationships (I can see some important differences) then different laws and a different word should apply.

Every religion has gay clergy; not every religion allows its clergy to acknowledge being gay. It follows that religions prohibiting gay clergy prefer dishonesty to heterosexuality. Like others commenting here, I've stopped trying to twist my mind into any kind of understanding of religion's irrationality. In both dogma and moral teachings, it so often fails the test of common sense.

I continue to be baffled that anyone could choose to use ancient scripture as a basis for morality. It's nice that some interpret it liberally in order to reach decent moral conclusions, but why go through such mental gymnastics? Why not just accept that it's not the word of a god, and then still do the decent thing because it's the decent thing to do?

I agree with Dr. Silverman that atheism solves a number of life's problems, including how to interpret sacred texts and how to deal with pompous, corrupt, and violent people professing to speak for the almighty. And I think that if there were more atheists, there would be fewer such pompous, corrupt and violent people. As for the church growing up, it is we who need to grow up to the point that we no longer need a church.

The human race will never emerge from its infancy until it has rid itself of the crutch of religion.

As George Bernard Shaw once wrote "The fact that a believer is more happy than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

MistYouro: Nice Nice very Nice! Tel MisYouro Ola, From Coney Island, BRO-oklyn, N.Y.!

Hugggs & a Kiss-ims, To ALL, EVERY & ALL Da [Auto-matic Blesseth] Brothers & the Sisters on S.S. Earth & Elsewheres!

Eeeeeee Haaaaa HALALUYA "O' ME/OUR EKLAHT'i"!