I have no idea where you get that acceptance of same sex marriage arises from Christian ideas. Because in my personal experience it really doesn't. I live in Italy and a lot of discrimination against gay people (me included), and a big part of the reason why we don't get actual marriage, is catholic rhetoric. Most of the homophobia I've experienced in my life, anecdotally, has been from devout christians: the more devout, the worse the discriminantion. So although I have no data on hand, I have a very strong suspicion that Christianity has nothing to do with it. If anything, it seems like at least in Europe, the more secular countries tend to get better rights for queer people and they get them faster (I think the first European country to get gay marriage was the Netherlands, back in 2001. And they're one of the least religious countries in Europe)

It’s hard to see if you limit your view to Europe, because Christian morality is just “in the water” there. I’m from Asia, where same-sex marriage is not accepted anywhere except Taiwan. It’s not accepted in Buddhist Thailand, Hindu India, Muslim Pakistan, atheist China, or Shinto/Buddhist Japan. It’s hard not to notice that the places where same-sex marriage is accepted have something in common: they were Christian for more than a thousand years.

It’s not just “secularism”—the absence of belief in God or absence of organized religion. Japan and China are extremely secular countries, more so than anywhere in Europe. The notable thing about the Netherlands seems to be not that they’re secular, but that they also were a hotbed of the Protestant reformation. Until the 20th century, the majority of the Dutch population was Calvinist. A few years after the Netherlands legalized same sex marriage—and long before most of the rest of Europe did so—Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage. Massachusetts was founded by fundamentalist Calvinists (the Puritans). Even though American Calvinists and European Calvinists split (geographically) 300-400 years ago, their version of “secularism” evolved in a very similar direction, and quite differently than the “secularism” of Asian countries. It’s really hard to say that’s just a coincidence.

Christian is a broad term, so I definitely have to concede the point that christian is a superset of fundamentalist christian, who are the real problem.

Many protestant sects have become accepting of homosexuality and even the pope is begrudgingly moving Catholicism away from uncivilized dogma.

Luther's reformation was ultimately about speaking truth to power. So I agree that there is a protestant disposition towards this type of thing or something in the protestant culture which is not as rotten as religions like orthodoxy or Islam. The idea of protestant work ethic, the golden rule, and similar artifacts probably played a very large part in the west out competing and out innovating the east.

However while I think there is an element of western culture that venerates speaking truth to power (and everything that implies, like there is a basis for finding truth), I don't think that is the christian element. If anything I think Socratic tradition is probably the root of western "enlightened" policies.

That being said, I am American and come from an American perspective. In America it is fundamentalist Christians who have largely opposed same sex marriage, even protestant cultures, my culture, were generally against homosexuality. For multiple elections it was a core wedge issue harped on like abortion. Some proponents of gay marriage are christian, but all opponents of gay marriage are christian (or Muslim, or some other fundamentalist or foreign group) and are against homosexuality because of their Christianity.

Fundamentalist is probably a better term.

After it became uncool to hate on homosexual people, there was a primarily christian shift to persecute transsexual people because they were weaker and less able to wield political power. I haven't seen the christian love movement pointed at trans people, that is for sure.

I read a pretty good quote about how the idea of separation between church and state was to protect the state from the church, but what are witnessing in real time is the state corrupting the church. These obviously non christian ideas of hate have somehow become the christian zeitgeist. The more christian someone feels, the more hate and lack of empathy for others they seem to have. Turn the other cheek isn't exactly republican dogma. Trump isn't exactly Christ like. I say this not as an outside judge. I say this having been raised Christian.

> The dig at Christianity is odd.

It is not a dig at Christianity. It is pointing out that the church wants to own the term spiritually and civic-ly. In other-words they want religious institutions that they have control over codified into law, and special privileges granted by the state over their codified religious institution. Separating the spiritual concept from the legal concept requires either the church give up the word marriage or the state give up the word marriage.

> state atheism

I am not sure I buy this idea of state atheism as presented. State atheism is forced. Western atheism is chosen. I think there is a world of difference, one has it's philosophical basis in reason, the other in dominance. Religion is dominance focused, you don't need to listen to much christian rock to hear how important submission to Jesus is, whatever that means. I also think the notion of state atheism in a palce like china is complicated. China cathol-isized bhuddism (meaning gutting the spiritual moral core and replacing it with indulgences and extravagance and other bankrupt practices while co-opting it as a tool of state power), while also seeing religion as a competitive force to state and as a colonial tool used by foreign powers.

> Some proponents of gay marriage are christian, but all opponents of gay marriage are christian (or Muslim, or some other fundamentalist or foreign group) and are against homosexuality because of their Christianity.

You’re just observing that American politics occurs between Christians (or at least people who were raised Christian). Internationally, acceptance of homosexuality, especially homosexual marriage, is a distinctive feature of countries that have a thousand plus years of Christian history.

In the US, there is a sharp distinction between what foreign groups accept as to laws they perceive as governing “Americans,” and what they accept in their own communities. My extended family is from a Muslim country, but are college educated and highly secular. My dad rants about religion being the opiate of the masses and stuff like that. But it would be completely unthinkable for anyone in our community to come out as gay. As far as I can tell, the same is true of south Asian communities from a Hindu background, even though the religious tradition is completely different. There is something distinctive about Christian and secularism evolved from a foundation of Christianity.

> I am not sure I buy this idea of state atheism as presented. State atheism is forced. Western atheism is chosen. I think there is a world of difference, one has it's philosophical basis in reason, the other in dominance.

The Chinese are hyper-rational. That’s how they managed to revolutionize the living standard of their people in such a short time. The difference between Chinese atheism and western atheism is that the latter clings to the notion of individuals having inherent dignity and rights. That’s not a notion rooted in “reason.” That’s not an evidence-based idea rooted in biological reality. That’s a metaphysical assumption that comes from the Christian view that each individual is created in God’s image. Christian societies spent a thousand years developing all these ideas about the nature of the individual, based on Christianity. And they kept those underlying ideas even as they stopped overtly worshiping God.

You’re correct that Christianity posits submission to God. But the implication of that is that God is above the temporal government. That was, in fact, one of the big themes of the Protestant Reformation. In China, they never had that concept. When they had too many people, they just killed the extra babies that were born in violation of the one child policy. That was perfectly rational. If the experts decided that overpopulation was harmful to the whole society, and the baby was just a not-yet sentient meat organism, what was wrong about fixing the problem?