Just to string the whole thing together here:
I realize that you like to parse things very carefully… What exactly do you mean by “the battle”, and how will it be lost? Will SSM contribute to losing the “battle”? You are not explaining yourself very well here, and simply moving to your usual “nobody understands me/ you’re all too obtuse” defense, perhaps you could explain more clearly.
If there were no issues of liberty, rights, and freedoms involved, I would agree with you completely. Or rather I would if it were actually true that the gays were trying to force a moral worldview on the religious types, which they are not. They’re trying to change the actual world - but if religions want to keep spouting that gay marriage is bad and no gays can come through their doors, then that ain’t great but that’s the way it is.
Respecting individualism is a longstanding and persistent part of american culture. Trying to place the rights of the individual at odds with the american culture is nonsense.
Which means that this “rights of the collective” yoiu speak of has squat to do with “protecting the culture”, and everything to do with “tyranny of the majority”.
Right, right. Grounding myself in paranoia and antagonism…
Well, now that I’m grounded in paranoia and antagonism, I totally think that all the books in school will be replaced with gaybooks. However, that’s just my paranoia talking. In practical terms, I don’t exactly think this will dominate the educational spectrum.
Look, let’s be quite explicit. It’s not about the schools, it’s about the world. “My Two Mommies” isn’t half as bad or threatening as Timmy’s friend Jimmy *having *two mommies. The problem you are expressing is that the religion will have become at odds, again, with the state of the world around people, which will, indeed, make it increasingly harder for the religion to convince people that it is an accirate reflection of the way things are, and that the way things actually are is not.
You are utterly correct that every time a religion is shown to be incorrect this damages the religion’s credibility, and when it is shown to have evil encoded in it (which various ones do - women marginalized, anyone?), that’s even more deterring. I freely acknowledge this. The problems you have in selling this are twofold - the first being that you are trying to argue that the world should bend to the religion, which in many respects is downright impossible and from an outside perspective is never desirable. You may try to shrug off the phrase “tyranny of the majority”, but what you are actually arguing is religious tyranny. This will, necessarily, be a tough sell to the people who you are expressing a desire to oppress, which includes anyone not in your religion, even if they are not specific targets of this particular theocratic initiative.
The other problem you have is that encoding religion into law is unconstitutional. Bang - your argument is dead, in the US at least. It doesn’t matter if the “culture” is being damaged; it’s illegal to protect it by legal fiat.
Now you are just being offensive. I have quite explicitly not been blowing off the religious objections because they’re not my problem. If I was religious I would still support SSM. Hell man, I am a homophobe. I don’t want to ever have to look at a gay couple kissing or snuggling, ever. You think I don’t know what you’re talking about here?
But our collective feelings on the matter are utterly trumped by two things: One, I don’t have the right to tell people what to do in their own houses and their own lives. Them being married doesn’t materially effect me, so let them do it. (And it doesn’t do a damned thing to reduce homosexuality anyway, so who cares? Honestly?) And two: the foundation of our frikking country is that people should have equal rights. “All men are created equal.” Yes, we’re not all the way there yet. Initially we were much worse. But that you are ignoring that part of the culture underscores for me that “culture” is just a masking for “my religion forced on everyone.” Calling it “culture” at all is extremely disingenuous.
“Culture”, my eye. But yes, there can only be one winner. Either the tyrannically-religious get to control and limit the rights and activities of gay people, or they don’t.
You’re the one who wrote “So in public schools we will be teaching that certain religious beliefs are wrong and evil.” If you don’t wish to defend religious beliefs in general from attack, then don’t argue from that position!
bolding and allcaps mine. STOP SAYING THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT.
Your argument is simple. There are people who like things the way they are. The way things are, some people are denied rights. Were those people to get their rights, then the first people would be unhappy. SIMPLE.
Succinct and correct enough for you?
The use of weasel-words like “culture” to mean “religion” are slimy and dishonest in my opinion. Should I Pfft your entire argument every time you use them? How productive!
I was wondering when you’d get back to the nonsensical bullshit lie that the word “marriage” can’t be used comprehensibly in the terms “polgamous marriage” or “same-sex marriage”. Just can’t get enough of rewriting history and ignoring how language actually works, can you?
I think that for the side who’s claiming not to be irrational you’re engaging in a lot of fallacious and fraudulent argumentive tactics yourself. Motes and means, and all that.
Constitutionally speaking, America cannot legally be a Traditional Christian culture - at least not at the legal level. One goalpost is planted in the churches, the real Traditional Christian culture - and nobody is trying to force gay marriage into that arena. The other goalpost is planted in the American legal system.
Pick one.
And the pro-SSM side doesn’t ‘glom onto’ the harm to straights red herring.
So, five years after SSM becomes legal, say, we’d expect to see the beginning of a major societal shift, right? Church attendance dropping radically and such, perhaps. Birth rates spike downward, maybe. Something, to be sure.
I am weary of this. But as I said, I never said, ‘nobody understands me’. Plenty of people understood me just fine.
I’ve read to the end of the thread, and haven’t seem this answered. I’m just an atheist Jew, but my impression that “Christian belief” centered around things like Jesus, the resurrection, and salvation, and that any position on SSM is hardly fundamental to it. Why would bringing up that SSM is happening in the schools, and opposing prejudice against gays, be in any way the same as demonizing Christian belief? Or that Christian belief was wrong. Are you writing those Christians who support SSM out of the religion?
Here in California we have this problem already. Some Christians get their panties in a twist about anti-discrimination policies in schools. But they also get upset about teaching tolerance for non-Christian religions. if you think it is reasonable for schools to listen to people who think not condemning SSM is immoral, how do you feel about those who think not condemning Islam, Hinduism or even the LDS is immoral. How about those who think teaching evolution is immoral?
From what I see the schools bend over backwards to not condemn anyone - unless you think not agreeing on what is immoral is condemnation.
As for the impact of immorality - when I was a kid “living in sin” was definitely considered immoral, if practiced to some extent. Today I suspect very few people have any problem with it, and we’ve managed to stay in good shape, and Christianity hasn’t melted. Why do you think SSM would be any worse?
Your “Umm… no” suggests you thought Euphonious had said something that was obviously, blatantly wrong. I thought he did a fairly good job finding a contradiction on your statements, myself.
On the subject of misunderstanding, your earlier response to me: “Will my stance change on what?” was, I thought, a bit odd since the prompting question wasn’t all that difficult. My question was:
Not a hard question at all, really. In fact, I was glad that you finally proposed a metric, Church attendance, that we could actually analyze. Now it looks like that was just an off-the-cuff tease and we’re back to intangibles again.
I personally don’t care.
The same people who think SSM is wrong still think “living in sin” is wrong.
Because you are just being silly in how you address it. It’s a disingenuous aspect. “So mswas you’ve mentioned a possible metric, now create a scientific survey that we can use over the next ‘X’ years.”, it’s ridiculous. It’s a possible way to measure it. You’re just trying to get a gotcha moment in. “Oh you can’t predict the future, therefore you are wrong…hahahaha pwn noob!”
I’m developing the belief that the answer that the people who predict an ‘undefinable negative effect’ want to say is “No effect? Just wait five years for when God comes down and burns all the SSM-allowing countries into crispy critters, and put that in your ‘intangibles’ pipe and smoke it!”
Or possibly, “Wait until you’re dead and standing before God and he looks down and says ‘hmm, contributed to charities, saved widows, adopted orphans, -but you failed to prevent SSM from being legalized in your country?! Off to hell with you, sinner!’ - that’s your ‘tangible effect’!”
I could be wrong, of course. But at least it makes more sense than “I have a strong certainty that something really bad will happen but haven’t the faintest beginning of a hint of a speculation as to what it could possibly be.”
And **begbert2 **comes in clearly elucidating why I didn’t think your lines of inquiry were actually serious. Thank you begbert2, you do that quite a lot.
I knew that it was all about, “Because ‘wild stereotype’ the lulz it hurts, but we all hurt from the lulz together!”
Sure. And they are entitled to their opinion. But happily they haven’t tried to make it illegal, and that most of the country is ok with this hasn’t caused either the death of Christianity or a moral cataclysm. Which would seem to argue that America handles immorality fairly well.
Is it disingenuous when someone says “if this goes through, bad stuff will happen” to ask “what bad stuff is that?” How seriously must I phrase the question?
No, I’m trying to find an element, any element, in your argument that has some actual substance to it.
I assure you, if I ever say “pwn noob!” it will be ironical. And if a major plank in the anti-SSM argument is that something bad will happen 40 years from now, it is not unreasonable to ask what that something might be, and what the early warning signs would be.
Bryan Ekers The question is asked and answered. It is harmful to the way of life of people whom you deem as irrelevant and socially deviant. Nothing more needs to be said.
And I grow weary of your avoidance, and poor use of language.
But you did say:
“Personally I think losing this battle will be a good thing for Christianity”
By “this battle”, did you mean legalization of SSM or not?
If so, then you are arguing that SSM will be good for Christianity in the end.
If not, you have not been clear on what “this battle” means.
You are a poor communicator.
Despite your desire to play the chronically misunderstood martyr, I was completely serious. That is the only explanation I can think of that makes “It’s going to be totally bad - but I can’t say why” not be utterly and overtly irrational. It’s not a conclusion I quickly leapt to, and it’s not something I post in jest - I seriously see it as a much more plausible explanation, that actually presents those who makes such statements as rational human beings, as opposed to complete nutcases.
Now, I am open to alternative explanations for this mysterious “ominious premonition of inexplicable doom” that has been mentioned several times here. If you have a better one, please, share it.
But please stop blaming the anti-SSM side’s faults on us. Just because their arguments are in all seriousness usually ridiculous does not mean that the only reason to engage them in debate is to point and laugh. Personally I can find better ways to entertain myself - the only reason I continue to ask for rationales is in the hope that perhaps, maybe, somebody will be able to come up with something I am capable of respecting.
Only to the morons. More people stated clear understanding of my point than continue to have trouble understanding me. As this is the case, I am going to assume that you are just a poor listener.
Since I am about to bow out of this thread.
It’s not my fault you are a fucking moron.
[Wizard of Oz]
SSM is wrong because,
Because, because, because
Because of the terrible things it does
[/Wiz]
Pay no attention to the handwaving behind the curtain.
I lived through the sexual revolution. I even fought in it, though not as much as I’d have liked to. The Christians upset about that had a lot better reasons than people upset by SSM. Some of them have even come true. But I think we’re freer in general than we were in 1965.
It is your fault you turn tail and run instead of defending your beliefs using intellect and logic.
Don’t bother the reply, I don’t think a 0 is as funny as you think it is. 
They are upset about SSM for the same reasons they were upset about anything in the sexual revolution. They are still fighting the sexual revolution, you think it’s over, that’s the rift between the two sides.
I disagree. Legalizing SSM may make these people uncomfortable, outraged even, but it in no way prevents these people from living their own lives in according to their own beliefs. As we’ve discussed before, no one is in danger of being forced into a same-sex marriage against his or her will.