Freedom of religion (rather than civil rights) as a "template" for gay rights?

[Martinus]

One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.

It's considered an immutable characteristic.

Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?

I said biological - that's two different things.

[Martinus]

As I see it, the main problem with Marty's analogy is that it's too broad.  (A secondary problem is that religious freedom is also a civil rights issue, and Marty seems to think that it's not.  It is, it's just that as Marty correctly points out, sexual orientation and religion are generally less obvious than race or gender.)  Our model of civil rights has come to be largely based on being a member of a protected class, and the argument about gay rights is about whether or not sexual orientation should be the basis for a protected class.  That a non-protected group has some analogous characteristics in common with a protected class is at best a weak argument for making them a protected class.

Err, man, I know that. I used the expression "civil rights" because "civil rights movement" is used to denote Martin Luther King/blacks' struggle. 

[Martinus]

The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. 

No, it just says they can't marry whities.

It doesn't.

Anyway, that's just one, totally minor aspect of it. Discrimination against blacks was about numerous other issues than just ban against interracial marriage - and even then it was equally discriminatory against all races. Whereas anti-gay-marriage ban is an issue that is quite central to gay rights, because the nature of the sexual orientation is closely tied with marriage and sex, obviously.

[Faeelin]

The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. 

No, it just says they can't marry whities.

It doesn't.

I'm not sure why I should trust you over white ministers from the 1960s and the decades beforehand.  I don't know if it's because you're not American, but you seem to think that this is the first time religion's played a role in American civil rights struggles, on either side.

[Eddie Teach]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oxfOncYiag

Yeah, I don't really know what point this makes. 

[alfred russel]

One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.

It's considered an immutable characteristic.

Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?

I said biological - that's two different things.

Okay, but for our minority leader saying religion is immutable, do you think he would say that because we are biologically conditioned that way, or because hod has put the spark of religion in each of our hearts?

[Martinus]

The bible doesn't say black people can't get married. 

No, it just says they can't marry whities.

It doesn't.

I'm not sure why I should trust you over white ministers from the 1960s and the decades beforehand.  I don't know if it's because you're not American, but you seem to think that this is the first time religion's played a role in American civil rights struggles, on either side.

Err, are you saying there were people arguing, in the US, that interracial marriage is against the Bible? 

OMFG that's so surreal. 

[Martinus]

One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.

It's considered an immutable characteristic.

Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?

I said biological - that's two different things.

Okay, but for our minority leader saying religion is immutable, do you think he would say that because we are biologically conditioned that way, or because hod has put the spark of religion in each of our hearts?

I think it doesn't matter. The fact is it is similar to sexual orientation in that, while we don't know how it happens (and is likely a complex process with elements both biological and cultural), it is not a matter of choice.

Incidentally, I think they found that whether one has a tendency to be religious or not is somehow reflected in the way our brains are built.

[alfred russel]

One reason this won't work is because you will have a hard time convincing people that religion has a genetic component.

It's considered an immutable characteristic.

Also, who ever said homosexuality is "genetic"?

I said biological - that's two different things.

Okay, but for our minority leader saying religion is immutable, do you think he would say that because we are biologically conditioned that way, or because hod has put the spark of religion in each of our hearts?

I think it doesn't matter. The fact is it is similar to sexual orientation in that, while we don't know how it happens (and is likely a complex process with elements both biological and cultural), it is not a matter of choice.

Incidentally, I think they found that whether one has a tendency to be religious or not is somehow reflected in the way our brains are built.

You convinced me.

But your analogy is never going to work on the religious anti-gay segment of society, because it is too complicated and involves concepts that aren't understood by most people. You will end up in shouting matches over whether religion derives from biology rather than whether gays deserve equal rights.

[Josquius]

I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.

How is it a bad analogy?

They're total opposites. To take the marriage example.

Inter-racial marriage: Something which has traditionally never been much of a issue. Inter-racial marriage has historically usually been totally fine, no one really cared about race too much. The development of institutionalised racism in the US was a product of the modern world.

Gay marriage: Something which has traditionally never been accepted. Even the Greeks for all their encouragment of man-love still expected that to be just a bit of fun on the side of your proper marriage. Just having homosexual relationships out in the open and accepted is a product of the modern world.

[Martinus]

I always hated the civil rights comparison for gay rights.
It does gay rights no favours, its facepalm worthy.

How is it a bad analogy?

They're total opposites. To take the marriage example.

Inter-racial marriage: Something which has traditionally never been much of a issue. Inter-racial marriage has historically usually been totally fine, no one really cared about race too much. The development of institutionalised racism in the US was a product of the modern world.

Gay marriage: Something which has traditionally never been accepted. Even the Greeks for all their encouragment of man-love still expected that to be just a bit of fun on the side of your proper marriage. Just having homosexual relationships out in the open and accepted is a product of the modern world.

Well, that's actually a horrible explanation.

Besides, Elagabalus married two guys.

[dps]

As I see it, the main problem with Marty's analogy is that it's too broad.  (A secondary problem is that religious freedom is also a civil rights issue, and Marty seems to think that it's not.  It is, it's just that as Marty correctly points out, sexual orientation and religion are generally less obvious than race or gender.)  Our model of civil rights has come to be largely based on being a member of a protected class, and the argument about gay rights is about whether or not sexual orientation should be the basis for a protected class.  That a non-protected group has some analogous characteristics in common with a protected class is at best a weak argument for making them a protected class.

Err, man, I know that. I used the expression "civil rights" because "civil rights movement" is used to denote Martin Luther King/blacks' struggle. 

Civil rights legislation in the U.S. involves a heck of a lot more than just race, though of course race was our biggest civil rights issue.

[MadImmortalMan]

Probably for the over-arching genre of gay rights, I'd say it doesn't work.



For certain things, the most obvious being gay marriage, it could I think.

I mean, the government recognizes the marriages performed by the religions who refuse to marry gays. But if a religion decided it was fine with performing gay marriages, then the government won't recognize those. They can't have it one way and not the other, so maybe there's a freedom of religion argument there.


Edit: Maybe freedom of association would be the closest fit for gay rights as a whole?

[The Brain]

I think freedom of homosexuals is much less important than freedom from homosexuals. Can't they just pray away the gay?

[Admiral Yi]

Probably for the over-arching genre of gay rights, I'd say it doesn't work.



For certain things, the most obvious being gay marriage, it could I think.

I mean, the government recognizes the marriages performed by the religions who refuse to marry gays. But if a religion decided it was fine with performing gay marriages, then the government won't recognize those. They can't have it one way and not the other, so maybe there's a freedom of religion argument there.


Edit: Maybe freedom of association would be the closest fit for gay rights as a whole?

That argument would work if the government deferred to churches on who can get married.  For example, if churches were allowed to perform publicly recognized marriages of 10 year olds, or first cousins, or multiple spouses.  But they aren't.