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

[The Brain]

I don't see what changing the analogy accomplishes.

after all, from a point of view of a Christian, someone who is a Muslim or a Buddhist is damning his or her soul much more than someone who is gay.

You know that this is not so, right?

[Martinus]

That coming from a countryman of the lesbian bishop of Stockholm.

[Faeelin]

From a purely PR perspective, many of the gay rights' opponents are religious people - so they may be more receptive to comparing it to the freedom they hold very dear but one that also does not make sense from their faith's point of view - after all, from a point of view of a Christian, someone who is a Muslim or a Buddhist is damning his or her soul much more than someone who is gay.

"Our desire to have sex with men is just like the oppression Christians have faced for centuries!"

Mmm. I am not convinced this will have the effect you think it will.

[Josquius]

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

[DontSayBanana]

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

It's kind of a hybrid of both, as I see it- it's certainly not just an inherent characteristic like race, but this is as much about freedom from being discriminated against as part of the identified group as it is the freedom of the individual to express oneself as being homosexual.

[Faeelin]

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?

[merithyn]

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

But it is about civil rights. I'm not sure where the problem is.

[Eddie Teach]

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

[Martinus]

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

But it is about civil rights. I'm not sure where the problem is.

I explained it in the first post. 

[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?

Because the nature of discrimination in both cases is different, at least to the extent it is a current Western issue. It is not about law telling a gay person he or she can't enter some establishments, have a right to vote, hold certain offices etc.

It's not about gay people not having the same rights as straight people - after all you could retort that we have exactly the same rights, as a gay guy can marry a woman just as a straight guy can.

Instead, the nature of our goals is to get analogous rights to express ourselves in an analogous way as straight people - e.g. by being able to marry a person of the same gender just as they can marry a person of a different gender. This makes it akin to the freedom of religion/religious worship; after all, freedom of religion is not about everybody being able to worship Jesus - it's about everybody being able to choose the form and object of their religious practice, that is not the same, but analogous, too.

[Faeelin]

It's not about gay people not having the same rights as straight people - after all you could retort that we have exactly the same rights, as a gay guy can marry a woman just as a straight guy can.

Instead, the nature of our goals is to get analogous rights to express ourselves in an analogous way as straight people - e.g. by being able to marry a person of the same gender just as they can marry a person of a different gender. This makes it akin to the freedom of religion/religious worship; after all, freedom of religion is not about everybody being able to worship Jesus - it's about everybody being able to choose the form and object of their religious practice, that is not the same, but analogous, too.

So I suppose desegregation of the military and the Civil Rights Act nondiscrimination provisions have no analogies to things today?

[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.

[Admiral Yi]

In purely intellectual/logical way, many of the arguments levied against equal rights for non-heterosexuals can be equally well used against granting equal rights to people of other religions. So using a better analogy means it can't be as easily debunked as an analogy to, say, the civil rights movement which is not similar in some ways.

From a purely PR perspective, many of the gay rights' opponents are religious people - so they may be more receptive to comparing it to the freedom they hold very dear but one that also does not make sense from their faith's point of view - after all, from a point of view of a Christian, someone who is a Muslim or a Buddhist is damning his or her soul much more than someone who is gay.

Except I don't think the opponents of gay marriage hold freedom of religion very dearly.  Their ability to practice some variant of Christianity has never been under threat in this country.  And they usually view the constitutional seperation of church and state as barrier to the public expression of their faith, not as a protection.

The only people it might swing are old school polygamist Mormons.

[alfred russel]

Ok, first of all, a disclaimer: this is a gay thread. So if your contribution to this thread is going to consist of pointing out how I start gay threads etc., go somewhere else; you don't have to read it.

Having said that, I have been thinking a lot lately how using the American civil rights or women's rights struggle as a sort of "template" or "blueprint" for arguing in favour of gay rights is not exactly useful, especially as religious rights (freedom of religion) seem to be a much better analogy to use. Of course it is not a perfect metaphor but think about it:

- both have a mixed biologically-cultural genesis (we are not sure of the biological origins, but we know that both a tendency to be religious and a tendency to be of a non-heterosexual orientation has some biological basis; but at the same time there is also a recognized cultural element; so it is both nature and nurture);

- the trait is discrete - it is not as immediately visible as it is in the case with race or sex, for example; and it can cut across races, families and ethnicities;

- people seem to have it in various degrees (some people stay one religion for life; some convert), and there is a certain level of fluidity - but despite it being able to change in some circumstances, it is not technically a "choice" - one cannot suddenly choose, by sheer will, to believe in God or convert to another religion;

- unlike the case with race or sex, discrimination is based more on a prohibition against certain practices connected with who you are, than just 'being' who you are - and from the perspective of another group, such practices seem often bizarre, immoral and sinful - yet we recognise that people who "are" something but are unable to engage in practices that are connected with that something are unhappy and it is evil to deny them a right to do so, unless they harm others;

- from the perspective of the society as a whole, it would probably make more sense to have everybody be of the same dominant religion or to be heterosexual - yet we recognize the need to give them all the same right to exist; and

- there are actually social and cultural differences between these groups (unlike, say, between races) which means that again technically, depending on your point of view, you could find one preferable over another from the point of view of the public interest - yet we recognize the need to treat all of them equally.

What do you think?

There is of course an extra bonus of being able to use it nicely to disarm religious people.

I mean, from the point of view of a devout Christian, surely a gay couple raising their son gay (assuming there was a casual link at all) would be putting their son's soul in much less of a danger than a Muslim straight couple raising their son Muslim, no?

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

[Faeelin]

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

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

@ alfred: I dunno, the House Minority Leader ocnsiders it an immutable characteristic...