Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I agree that marriage has a religious history. The current prime minister in Australia does not support same sex marriage. She has stated publicly that she is an atheist and lives with her long term partner ( whom is a man ). My opinion is that she has taken on the mining companies and introduced a controversial carbon tax ( which was politically unpopular ) and does not want to take on religion as well ( even in Australia this would be difficult politically ).
The problem is we're not going by religious equality, we're going by a majority of people holding to a certain religion and wanting to impose their religion's views upon everyone else. It's a numbers game. That kinda kicks religious freedom in the nuts, so the government shouldn't allow it to be about religion at all.
It's an odd situation in the UK, it feels like a secular society, but the Church of England is still the state religion and there are still Bishops sitting in the House of Lords...
@PedanticPorpoise, Here in the USA it feels like a Christian society, though church and state are separate and it's supposed to be secular. It says it's secular and would seem to be in every way... just doesn't feel that way. It's probably because the majority are Christian and so they get away with imposing Christian values, so long as those values don't really conflict with the population's values. Now on issues like same-sex marriage, there is a definite conflict, and it's an uphill battle for equality on this one because of that Christian majority. This is why I think there has to be some part of the government that can divorce itself from religion, that can take its job seriously as advocates for the entirety of the population and leave their religious beliefs at home. It can't be about the majority's personal distaste or religious distaste of homosexuality... if the States were supposed to be like that, there'd be no other religions here either.
It is rather strange that in our so called "democratic" society, where the government is supposed to represent the majority, we hear that Christians are getting away with imposing Christian values, but as long as those aren't in conflict with the population's values this appears to be fine despite that fact that support for heterosexual marriage appears to be the majority representation of the populations value.
On the topic of bigotry, hatred, profiling, or what have you, it seems that some of our brothers and sisters who support same sex marriage are dishing out what they claim the "Christian gay basher" are doing. Every Christian who supports heterosexual marriage is a gay basher, bigot, or hater? Hmm
However, I do say that one of the fruits of being involved in this forum is that it in fact has affected my position on this particular subject greatly.
We know as long as far as limits and definitions go there will always be a disenfranchised segment, and they will suffer some form of inequality. Where I once was leaning to a government recognized civil union instead of marriage I'm now in favor of them being abolished at both the federal and state level, and the ending of any related government benefits including those provided for raising children.
If we are really speaking about equality here it has to be fair for all segments of the population. If we only alter the definition of marriage to support another and exclude the rest, and define who gets benefits and who doesn't that's not true equality.
That being said, I look to my faith for illumination, and not my government.
You don't throw out a whole system just because you don't want to make an amendment in the name of equality... And that's not the only thing wrong with that statement, especially concerning government speaking for the majority. But I'm too tired to discuss/argue.
As long as you are setting limits there is going to be some form of inequality against somebody. Why maintain another level of discrimination. Take the band aid off completly, and let the wound heal.
It is rather strange that in our so called "democratic" society, where the government is supposed to represent the majority, we hear that Christians are getting away with imposing Christian values, but as long as those aren't in conflict with the population's values this appears to be fine despite that fact that support for heterosexual marriage appears to be the majority representation of the populations value.
We live a constitutionally limited republic that was initially designed to help to prevent a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest from taking away the rights of the minority of other citizens. While it hasn't always worked well (e.g., slavery, racial segregation, etc.), our legal structure is amendable to change when social consciousness reaches a point where we can see that a certain segment of the population is being discriminated against by laws which deny them certain rights. At one time, racial segregation was legal in most states, and it wasn't until 1968 that segregation and 'separate but equal' laws (including laws preventing interracial marriages) were found to be unconstitutional and finally overturned.
On the topic of bigotry, hatred, profiling, or what have you, it seems that some of our brothers and sisters who support same sex marriage are dishing out what they claim the "Christian gay basher" are doing. Every Christian who supports heterosexual marriage is a gay basher, bigot, or hater? Hmm
I personally don't think that every Christian who supports heterosexual marriage and nothing else is necessarily a 'gay basher,' 'bigot,' 'homophobe,' etc. But I do think that many of them, regardless of their motivation, are attempting to impose their religious and/or personal beliefs about homosexuality and marriage onto the rest of society, which has taken concrete form in the shape of laws and amendments targeting and negatively impacting members of the LGBTQ community by denying same-sex couples equal access to the privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy, not to mention reinforcing negative stereotypes that make their lives living hells (e.g., homosexuals are abominations, homosexuality is unnatural, etc.). And that, I think, is unacceptable. They should be afforded the same rights and protections as everyone else.
... I personally don't think that every Christian who supports heterosexual marriage and nothing else is necessarily a 'gay basher,' 'bigot,' 'homophobe,' etc. But I do think that many of them, regardless of their motivation, are attempting to impose their religious beliefs about homosexuality and marriage onto the rest of society...
Keep in mind that not all of them see it as (or only as) a religious matter.
... I personally don't think that every Christian who supports heterosexual marriage and nothing else is necessarily a 'gay basher,' 'bigot,' 'homophobe,' etc. But I do think that many of them, regardless of their motivation, are attempting to impose their religious beliefs about homosexuality and marriage onto the rest of society...
Keep in mind that not all of them see it as (or only as) a religious matter.
You're right. That should be amended to read "attempting to impose their religious and/or personal beliefs about homosexuality and marriage" or something like that.
Why does marriage need to be defined at any level of govt?
Because marriage in our society isn't just a social union under the purview of religious institutions, it's also a legal contract between people (termed spouses) conferring certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to said people.
Basically a straight couple can either have kids or not have kids. They can have oral sex, anal sex, whatever kind of sex they want and no one complains. If they're unable to have kids naturally they can have artificial insemination, a surrogate, an adoption, all sorts of options.
A same-sex couple is nearly the same situation, the only real difference being that their options for having children are all of those alternative methods that straight people already employ. But they don't have to have children, just as straight people don't have to have children. A lesbian couple has the ability to be at least half biologically linked to their offspring through artificial insemination, and a gay couple the same through artificial insemination of a surrogate, though with such things as adoptions biology is not a determining factor when it comes to heredity.
Marriage is just two consenting adults who love each other expressing a lifelong bond that is recognized by the government, which means there are certain rights and privileges and so on afforded to them (including tax issues), and those rights are available if they do decide to have children through any of those methods. And also importantly, they are considered equal, not oppressed by bigotry or discrimination. What it's like right now is segregation... straight people get married, gay/lesbian people get civil unions (if even that, and it's not the same); like they have to sit in a separate section of the bus and are marked as unequal, as not worthy. They're as worthy as anyone else!
The only reason not to amend marriage is the position that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, which society by and large has already said isn't so, with the marriage issue being the only hold-out on their equality. Allowing same-sex couples to get married is not an attack on traditional marriage, it's an expansion of the scope of traditional marriage. No one is taking away the rights of straight couples whatsoever, they're only recognizing the equality of same-sex couples. Only bigotry would really prevent this... whether right out in the open or in disguise as something else. It's a simple enough amendment. Allowing women to vote was not an attack on the traditional system of olden times, it was an expansion for equality, the same as this.
Time and again @Jason has all the relevant information, and I bow to his knowledge and wisdom.
... The only reason not to amend marriage is the position that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, which society by and large has already said isn't so, with the marriage issue being the only hold-out on their equality. ...
I think you're overstating it. Just how as "society by and large" stated that homosexuality is not wrong or unnatural? According to the latest Pew poll, the % that favor gay marriage is still less than half -- 48%.
And, even then, what society are you talking about? American society? World society?
@vinlyn, There's nothing considered inherently wrong in American society about homosexuality any more than promiscuous sex or unmarried couples living together or interracial (and interfaith) couples. Individuals or religions may have problems with these, but society at large and our government don't hold these to be wrong or unlawful, and protects all of its citizens from discrimination. We're at least to live and let live, to accept that others are different from ourselves, which is okay except when there's a problem related to this that needs fixed and then we end up using our "majority of hate" to try and keep certain people down. However even that majority isn't very big, and the majority of younger people who are accepting of homosexuality is on the rise... which means the old folks will eventually get pushed out anyway. They're clinging to the older conception of homosexuality being wrong that was never so much religion as it was a prejudice of the time... because homosexuality was rare and had never been tolerated/accepted, it wasn't tolerated/accepted. As time goes on it's found a lot more tolerance and acceptance in this world, and it's being seen more as natural (which it is).
This trend is the same as with racism. There's a lot less racism today than there was 40 years ago. The same process happens with homosexuality, with people eventually "getting it" that it's just another part of the variety of being human, it's not less-than (unequal). The one establishment in law that is still lacking is marriage, and that's mostly been because there hasn't been enough of a push I think. With an expanding consciousness of acceptance, a greater push is being generated... and just like the women's vote, just like slavery, this is something that I think will definitely happen at some point.
If there is no legal status then it is a non-event as far as the law is concerned.
A more precise 'why' depends on how you consider the issue... for example, a valid answer may be that marriage provides for special schemes of property ownership - the logistics (and ultimately cost) of unwinding the legal status of marriage outweight the benefits...
@vinlyn, There's nothing considered inherently wrong in American society about homosexuality any more than promiscuous sex or unmarried couples living together or interracial (and interfaith) couples. Individuals or religions may have problems with these, but society at large and our government don't hold these to be wrong or unlawful, and protects all of its citizens from discrimination. We're at least to live and let live, to accept that others are different from ourselves, which is okay except when there's a problem related to this that needs fixed and then we end up using our "majority of hate" to try and keep certain people down. However even that majority isn't very big, and the majority of younger people who are accepting of homosexuality is on the rise... which means the old folks will eventually get pushed out anyway. They're clinging to the older conception of homosexuality being wrong that was never so much religion as it was a prejudice of the time... because homosexuality was rare and had never been tolerated/accepted, it wasn't tolerated/accepted. As time goes on it's found a lot more tolerance and acceptance in this world, and it's being seen more as natural (which it is).
If there's a "majority of hate", then I guess there is a majority who find it wrong. And I would remind you that it took the Supreme Court until 2002 (just 10 years ago) to strike down sodomy laws.
So what vinlyn? I'm sure the majority, being Christian or simply still fearful after 9/11, find Islam wrong these days. Does that make Islam wrong? Does that mean they have any right to mess with Muslims in the USA? The democratic system of the USA is not about the majority imposing itself upon the minority, that isn't how it is set up or its purpose. The system is to elect officials, and those officials are to represent all of us equally without one group imposing itself upon another, not just the majority. The government then protects Muslims and their rights, as they should protect homosexuals and their rights. The issue of marriage is a right that, given equality, homosexuals should have... it just hasn't made it through the legal system yet for several reasons.
It's just the same as every other equality issue, every other civil rights issue. There's going to be an initial majority that thinks it's wrong, but that doesn't make it wrong... that's just the force of opposition that isn't heading in the same direction that our actual collective consciousness is heading. We overcome inequality, that's what we've been doing for the length and breadth of history... the majority becomes smaller and smaller until it flips and heads in the other direction. This is human growth. It doesn't take much to come to this reasonable conclusion, if people divorce themselves from their prejudices for a moment and look to our history and our inclusiveness (rather than exclusiveness) as a species.
So what vinlyn? I'm sure the majority, being Christian or simply still fearful after 9/11, find Islam wrong these days. Does that make Islam wrong? Does that mean they have any right to mess with Muslims in the USA? The democratic system of the USA is not about the majority imposing itself upon the minority, that isn't how it is set up or its purpose. The system is to elect officials, and those officials are to represent all of us equally without one group imposing itself upon another, not just the majority. The government then protects Muslims and their rights, as they should protect homosexuals and their rights. The issue of marriage is a right that, given equality, homosexuals should have... it just hasn't made it through the legal system yet for several reasons.
It's just the same as every other equality issue, every other civil rights issue. There's going to be an initial majority that thinks it's wrong, but that doesn't make it wrong... that's just the force of opposition that isn't heading in the same direction that our actual collective consciousness is heading. We overcome inequality, that's what we've been doing for the length and breadth of history... the majority becomes smaller and smaller until it flips and heads in the other direction. This is human growth.
First of all, now you're changing arguments. In the post I responded to, you were discussing whether society thinks it's wrong or right. Now you are talking about...well, I guess the pursuit of happiness clause of the Constitution. Those are 2 separate arguments. I agree about how it should be. I disagree about how it is.
Second, in terms of whether the society sees it as right or wrong, you've oversimplified it. There are not just those 2 opinions. There are at least 3 opinions in terms of public opinion. 1.) There's nothing wrong with it. 2.) It's wrong. 3.) It's wrong, but it's the choice of the individual.
@vinlyn, Again though, so what? Why are you even arguing about that? It doesn't seem a fruitful argument, it seems something just to argue to nitpick. The only reason I debate this is for people to see reason on equality... I don't care to argue about every little thing, especially if you already agree about how things should be.
@Cloud said " Time and again @Jason has all the relevant information, and I bow to his knowledge and wisdom. "
I agree. He has been bringing it!
BTW, Jason, I enjoyed the read on your blog about the Chhik-fil-AA thing going on down here. Your spreading good stuff from what I see.
Well, I think that's debatable (I know just as many who'd disagree with you); but thanks for taking the time to read by blog and the kind words. Always appreciated.
You know, Cloud, just because some disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're nitpicking. You seem to think you know all the viewpoints on homosexuality. You don't. Take if from a gay man who has lived it for 51 years, you don't own the issue. There are myriad viewpoints and situations out there. The Supreme Court decision on sodomy was not nitpicking. Public opinion polls are not nitpicking. These issues and many more are what will determine the fate of gay marriage and other related issues. It's not a simple matter of being a cheerleader and saying you're liberal and therefore "right".
@vinlyn, What I'm saying is if I don't want to argue with you you'll have to get over it. These tend to go on and on, and we get completely off-track of the original message I had been saying, which I find counter-productive. That's my opinion, let's just leave it at that.
@footiam, Whaddaya mean, like gay/lesbian people saying straight people can't get married? Straight people would react badly to that, just as LGBT people react badly to the same treatment. Or did you have some specific example in mind?
LBGT people aren't trying to impose upon straights at all, they're not trying to take anything away from them, they just want equal rights (to marry) and to be otherwise left alone. They're not even trying to force any religion to marry them to my knowledge... there are religions that would marry them of course, and if not then they should be able to get a courthouse marriage like many non-religious people do. Marriage isn't something owned by straight people alone, or even by religion, and yet it's straight people and religions that are opposed to allowing gay/lesbian marriage.
That's what I meant. The thing is probably now LBGT people are a minority and you probably don't get to find that group of bigots among them who say 'no' to this and that. I would suppose too the LBGT people are suffering and that probably make them more sensible then the people who get to do what they want.
@vinlyn, There's nothing considered inherently wrong in American society about homosexuality any more than promiscuous sex or unmarried couples living together or interracial (and interfaith) couples. Individuals or religions may have problems with these, but society at large and our government don't hold these to be wrong or unlawful, and protects all of its citizens from discrimination. We're at least to live and let live, to accept that others are different from ourselves, which is okay except when there's a problem related to this that needs fixed and then we end up using our "majority of hate" to try and keep certain people down. However even that majority isn't very big, and the majority of younger people who are accepting of homosexuality is on the rise... which means the old folks will eventually get pushed out anyway. They're clinging to the older conception of homosexuality being wrong that was never so much religion as it was a prejudice of the time... because homosexuality was rare and had never been tolerated/accepted, it wasn't tolerated/accepted. As time goes on it's found a lot more tolerance and acceptance in this world, and it's being seen more as natural (which it is).
This trend is the same as with racism. There's a lot less racism today than there was 40 years ago. The same process happens with homosexuality, with people eventually "getting it" that it's just another part of the variety of being human, it's not less-than (unequal). The one establishment in law that is still lacking is marriage, and that's mostly been because there hasn't been enough of a push I think. With an expanding consciousness of acceptance, a greater push is being generated... and just like the women's vote, just like slavery, this is something that I think will definitely happen at some point.
Yeah, there used to be slaves in America once. Most probably, homosexuality is not encouraged to ensure that the human species will be perpetuated. And about it being rare once, maybe that's before the advent of the internet.
I agree that marriage has a religious history. The current prime minister in Australia does not support same sex marriage. She has stated publicly that she is an atheist and lives with her long term partner ( whom is a man ). My opinion is that she has taken on the mining companies and introduced a controversial carbon tax ( which was politically unpopular ) and does not want to take on religion as well ( even in Australia this would be difficult politically ).
I supported Julia until she expressed her stance on gay marriage. She lost me then...
As for the OP, the head zen master of my school is a gay woman who lives with her same sex partner, they even have a child I think. Nobody, in the zen school at least, thinks there is anything wrong with that.
As for the OP, the head zen master of my school is a gay woman who lives with her same sex partner, they even have a child I think. Nobody, in the zen school at least, thinks there is anything wrong with that.
I think for most gay people, the money angle is far less important than the dignity angle.
I think the reason governments support heterosexual marriage is for the returns of procreation and the expected effects of a stable family life on the development of the fledgling generation, and most major religious beliefs support that. However, since society is degrading this seems to be no longer valid. A lot of marriages simply don’t last and become broken.
To the Orthodox Christian their sole purpose is illumination and union with God. Marriage is a spiritual mystery or sacrament given to the Church to support that purpose. If one is not blessed to live a monastic life then their blessing is marriage becoming one flesh in their offspring. A homosexual marriage is barren in this regard.
I know it’s difficult for people not associate this belief as a personal attack as there are many in our society in favor of heterosexual marriage that are ignorant and behave badly towards others.
Since “Marriage” as seen in most major religious traditions is a spiritual concern perhaps a civil union is more appropriate for a secular society.
Also, the Orthodox Church will never consider marriage as other than between a man and a woman. Does the government have the right to say and dictate to the Church its spirituality that it must do otherwise?
The reality is that even an institution as solidly conservative as the Orthodox church is showing the first hairline cracks that will lead to the dam breaking in this regard. There is a thriving Gay and Lesbian group within Orthodoxy.
From reading back to August's posts, I wanted to comment on something. The sticking point overall is religious, and the sticking point itself is the word 'marriage." Christians think God created marriage, and they don't want to share that with gay people, because the bible say gay is wrong and bad. There is also a lot of concern that if gay marriage is made legal across the board, that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages against their beliefs which is entirely untrue. But if you look at the polls where marriage as a term is removed, and overwhelming majority (I want to say 78% but I'd have to double check) are a-okay with gay people having a union of some sort, they just don't want them to call it marriage.
Unfortunately as these states go through the voting and amendment process, many of the amendments don't leave room for unions OR marriage, so it just stops the entire process from moving forward, which is wrong.
Personally, ideally, I think "marriage" should be stricken from legal and civil definitions. If religions people want to hold marriage as their own, whatever. I don't care what my relationship with my husband is defined as as long as we have the rights. I think we need a change over to all civil/legal commitments being unions, allowing for gays to have them as well, and assign the legal etc rights to the union. Then if religious folk want a religious marriage, they can get one from their religious community. That is what we really need to be doing. Not witholding a right from gay people, but affording EVERYONE the same right, and religious people their own special ceremony as they see fit.
I have been in favor of reserving marriage for straight unions, and calling gay unions "civil unions" to make the change process move along more quickly and gain gay people more equal civil rights. In other words, for now taking the "marriage" aspect out of the argument.
As for the OP, the head zen master of my school is a gay woman who lives with her same sex partner, they even have a child I think. Nobody, in the zen school at least, thinks there is anything wrong with that.
I think for most gay people, the money angle is far less important than the dignity angle.
I was speaking mostly from the viewpoint of the government feeling the need to get involved with marriage to begin with. I can't see any other reason why the government need to be involved to begin with. I would doubt most gay people want to get married for financial reasons.
@Citta I'm very conservative with regards to my spirituality, but I'm also very liberal in my political beliefs, and I don't say this to be offensive, but you're not grasping the mind, purpose, and resolve of the Church as I previously stated.
For over two thousand years gay and lesbian persons have participated in the life of the Church and obtained salvation, and to suggest that cracks have now developed because of their presence, and that this will now start to bring about a change in how the Church minsters her holy mysteries is naive. The fact is the Church has always been full of cracks and fissures whatever they may be, but its not going to bow down to every wind or secular pressure from within and without.
We hear much and sympathize about the tragedy in Tibet, but the Holy Orthodox Church and its believers in Russia suffered terrible and comparable tragedies too at the hands of the state capitalists and their supporters. However, it did not change its holy traditions even while on the verge of elimination, and that is the typical mind set of the Orthodox Christian.
@andyrobin You mean that people used to feel they had to have children to propagate the religion or something?
I saw a video on that once, and it was only made a few years ago! Some Christian organization was saying that all the Muslims are having loads of babies, and if the Christians don't start having more babies the Muslims will outnumber the Christians. It was like a call to breed.
It was completely and utterly nuts.
That's my pick up line if I meat Sarah Palin in a bar
@Citta I'm very conservative with regards to my spirituality, but I'm also very liberal in my political beliefs, and I don't say this to be offensive, but you're not grasping the mind, purpose, and resolve of the Church as I previously stated.
For over two thousand years gay and lesbian persons have participated in the life of the Church and obtained salvation, and to suggest that cracks have now developed because of their presence, and that this will now start to bring about a change in how the Church minsters her holy mysteries is naive. The fact is the Church has always been full of cracks and fissures whatever they may be, but its not going to bow down to every wind or secular pressure from within and without.
We hear much and sympathize about the tragedy in Tibet, but the Holy Orthodox Church and its believers in Russia suffered terrible and comparable tragedies too at the hands of the state capitalists and their supporters. However, it did not change its holy traditions even while on the verge of elimination, and that is the typical mind set of the Orthodox Christian.
Oh, I think I am...The Orthodox Church. which is a finite and human institution is dwindling away due to its sclerosed condition even as we speak. Thats easily demonstrated. But the truths that it carries will outlive the shell of the institution. A neo orthodoxy will arise which will be Inclusivist. Although what any of this has to with Buddhism and the OP I am unsure.
Comments
The current prime minister in Australia does not support same sex marriage. She has stated publicly that she is an atheist and lives with her long term partner ( whom is a man ).
My opinion is that she has taken on the mining companies and introduced a controversial carbon tax ( which was politically unpopular ) and does not want to take on religion as well ( even in Australia this would be difficult politically ).
On the topic of bigotry, hatred, profiling, or what have you, it seems that some of our brothers and sisters who support same sex marriage are dishing out what they claim the "Christian gay basher" are doing. Every Christian who supports heterosexual marriage is a gay basher, bigot, or hater? Hmm
However, I do say that one of the fruits of being involved in this forum is that it in fact has affected my position on this particular subject greatly.
We know as long as far as limits and definitions go there will always be a disenfranchised segment, and they will suffer some form of inequality.
Where I once was leaning to a government recognized civil union instead of marriage I'm now in favor of them being abolished at both the federal and state level, and the ending of any related government benefits including those provided for raising children.
If we are really speaking about equality here it has to be fair for all segments of the population. If we only alter the definition of marriage to support another and exclude the rest, and define who gets benefits and who doesn't that's not true equality.
That being said, I look to my faith for illumination, and not my government.
Good night everyone!
Good night :-)
A same-sex couple is nearly the same situation, the only real difference being that their options for having children are all of those alternative methods that straight people already employ. But they don't have to have children, just as straight people don't have to have children. A lesbian couple has the ability to be at least half biologically linked to their offspring through artificial insemination, and a gay couple the same through artificial insemination of a surrogate, though with such things as adoptions biology is not a determining factor when it comes to heredity.
Marriage is just two consenting adults who love each other expressing a lifelong bond that is recognized by the government, which means there are certain rights and privileges and so on afforded to them (including tax issues), and those rights are available if they do decide to have children through any of those methods. And also importantly, they are considered equal, not oppressed by bigotry or discrimination. What it's like right now is segregation... straight people get married, gay/lesbian people get civil unions (if even that, and it's not the same); like they have to sit in a separate section of the bus and are marked as unequal, as not worthy. They're as worthy as anyone else!
The only reason not to amend marriage is the position that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, which society by and large has already said isn't so, with the marriage issue being the only hold-out on their equality. Allowing same-sex couples to get married is not an attack on traditional marriage, it's an expansion of the scope of traditional marriage. No one is taking away the rights of straight couples whatsoever, they're only recognizing the equality of same-sex couples. Only bigotry would really prevent this... whether right out in the open or in disguise as something else. It's a simple enough amendment. Allowing women to vote was not an attack on the traditional system of olden times, it was an expansion for equality, the same as this.
Time and again @Jason has all the relevant information, and I bow to his knowledge and wisdom.
And, even then, what society are you talking about? American society? World society?
This trend is the same as with racism. There's a lot less racism today than there was 40 years ago. The same process happens with homosexuality, with people eventually "getting it" that it's just another part of the variety of being human, it's not less-than (unequal). The one establishment in law that is still lacking is marriage, and that's mostly been because there hasn't been enough of a push I think. With an expanding consciousness of acceptance, a greater push is being generated... and just like the women's vote, just like slavery, this is something that I think will definitely happen at some point.
A more precise 'why' depends on how you consider the issue... for example, a valid answer may be that marriage provides for special schemes of property ownership - the logistics (and ultimately cost) of unwinding the legal status of marriage outweight the benefits...
It's just the same as every other equality issue, every other civil rights issue. There's going to be an initial majority that thinks it's wrong, but that doesn't make it wrong... that's just the force of opposition that isn't heading in the same direction that our actual collective consciousness is heading. We overcome inequality, that's what we've been doing for the length and breadth of history... the majority becomes smaller and smaller until it flips and heads in the other direction. This is human growth. It doesn't take much to come to this reasonable conclusion, if people divorce themselves from their prejudices for a moment and look to our history and our inclusiveness (rather than exclusiveness) as a species.
I agree. He has been bringing it!
BTW, Jason, I enjoyed the read on your blog
about the Chhik-fil-AA thing going on down here.
Your spreading good stuff from what I see.
Second, in terms of whether the society sees it as right or wrong, you've oversimplified it. There are not just those 2 opinions. There are at least 3 opinions in terms of public opinion. 1.) There's nothing wrong with it. 2.) It's wrong. 3.) It's wrong, but it's the choice of the individual.
Anyway, moving on.
As for the OP, the head zen master of my school is a gay woman who lives with her same sex partner, they even have a child I think. Nobody, in the zen school at least, thinks there is anything wrong with that.
There is a thriving Gay and Lesbian group within Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately as these states go through the voting and amendment process, many of the amendments don't leave room for unions OR marriage, so it just stops the entire process from moving forward, which is wrong.
Personally, ideally, I think "marriage" should be stricken from legal and civil definitions. If religions people want to hold marriage as their own, whatever. I don't care what my relationship with my husband is defined as as long as we have the rights. I think we need a change over to all civil/legal commitments being unions, allowing for gays to have them as well, and assign the legal etc rights to the union. Then if religious folk want a religious marriage, they can get one from their religious community. That is what we really need to be doing. Not witholding a right from gay people, but affording EVERYONE the same right, and religious people their own special ceremony as they see fit.
I'm very conservative with regards to my spirituality, but I'm also very liberal in my political beliefs, and I don't say this to be offensive, but you're not grasping the mind, purpose, and resolve of the Church as I previously stated.
For over two thousand years gay and lesbian persons have participated in the life of the Church and obtained salvation, and to suggest that cracks have now developed because of their presence, and that this will now start to bring about a change in how the Church minsters her holy mysteries is naive. The fact is the Church has always been full of cracks and fissures whatever they may be, but its not going to bow down to every wind or secular pressure from within and without.
We hear much and sympathize about the tragedy in Tibet, but the Holy Orthodox Church and its believers in Russia suffered terrible and comparable tragedies too at the hands of the state capitalists and their supporters. However, it did not change its holy traditions even while on the verge of elimination, and that is the typical mind set of the Orthodox Christian.
A neo orthodoxy will arise which will be Inclusivist.
Although what any of this has to with Buddhism and the OP I am unsure.