[QUOTE=Der Tris. I simply don’t care about God’s will, assuming he exists. If he opposes gay marriage, then he’s in the wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well mostly you are making an ass out of you. As you and I don’t know His will it’s all you baby. From what Jesus tells me all I need is Love. That’s enough to keep me doing His will and making haters like you null and void. So “Peace be with you” my friend. As it was, it ever shall be.
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
[QUOTE=Der Tris]
I simply don’t care about God’s will, assuming he exists. If he opposes gay marriage, then he’s in the wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Well mostly you are making an ass out of you. As you and I don’t know His will it’s all you baby. From what Jesus tells me all I need is Love. That’s enough to keep me doing His will and making haters like you null and void. So “Peace be with you” my friend. As it was, it ever shall be.
[/QUOTE]
It’s the people who OPPOSE gay rights who are the “haters” here. As for the rest, I’m not sure what you are babbling about.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It’s the people who OPPOSE gay rights who are the “haters” here. As for the rest, I’m not sure what you are babbling about.
[/QUOTE]
No, even if it’s the case that people who oppose gay rights are haters it doesn’t mean that there can’t be haters on the other side of the fence; and you make your hatred clear with every. single. post. you ever make on the subject of religion, to the extent that I instinctively try to wipe away the foamy spittle from the inside of my monitor screen.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Look, sorry you don’t like it, but generally speaking more or less all Christianity is opposed to it. More to the point, we don’t even think we can make it exist, to the extent we think it is a sacrament given out by God. It’s not there for our fun or pleasure; it’s there for the future generations as set down by God himself.
[/QUOTE]
<snicker> Hooo-kay…whatever you say. <snicker>
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
No, even if it’s the case that people who oppose gay rights are haters it doesn’t mean that there can’t be haters on the other side of the fence; and you make your hatred clear with every. single. post. you ever make on the subject of religion, to the extent that I instinctively try to wipe away the foamy spittle from the inside of my monitor screen.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah! Feel the hate in this polemic screed:
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Since I’m neither religious, gay, nor interested in marriage this never had much chance of affecting me personally; so what ? Unlike some people, I actually care what happens to other people. Forbidding gay marriage is wrong even if it’s among people whom I never meet or hear about.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Yeah! Feel the hate in this polemic screed:
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
He’s talking about why he does what he does, not about what religious folks do. Nice try. : pats **MrDibble ** on the head :
Just a quick question to all of you joiners who are personally pro-gay marriage: If you don’t agree with your church on their stand on gay marriage, why do you continue to call yourself a member of that church? I believe it was Poly who said that he wanted to “reclaim” his church and push for equality, etc. Well, the people have spoken and the church has either ignored that (in the case of the Canadians) or the decision has caused a split. The split makes sense to me, but for the rest of you who continue to hang with your denomination, is it that human rights just don’t mean all that much to you? Is it that everything else your church offers you is more important than this particular issue? I have a hard time understanding why you would want to align yourself with a group that you disagree with. Why not, as Kytheria suggests, don’t you disassociate yourselves from these assholes and find a group that blows off those parts of the bible that you do, as well? Is there a point where you’ll say “Jeeez…I really don’t like these people.” Or will you hang with them forever hoping that they’ll change?
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Just a quick question to all of you joiners who are personally pro-gay marriage: If you don’t agree with your church on their stand on gay marriage, why do you continue to call yourself a member of that church? QUOTE]
Well I’ll tell how I feel about it. As a Catholic I am starting to really question some of my Churches policies and beliefs. Do I support abortion? No, not in all cases but It really isn’t my decision as I’m a man. I believe that if a woman needs an abortion for whatever reason thats between her and God. Just as I ask for His guidance so should she. She will know His will in the matter just as he reveals the truth to me. I want to belong to a church because fellowshipping with those who also believe in Him is the only way to learn and grow in faith and helping me to get closer to Him. At this point in my life I’m not so sure I can continue to attend a church that asks me to follow them blindly and perhaps ignore what God wants me to do. I will continue to ask His guidance in the matter and when He shows me the answer then I’ll know what to do. And if you don’t mind me asking, what do mean by “joiners”?
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Just a quick question to all of you joiners who are personally pro-gay marriage: If you don’t agree with your church on their stand on gay marriage, why do you continue to call yourself a member of that church? QUOTE]
Well I’ll tell how I feel about it. As a Catholic I am starting to really question some of my Churches policies and beliefs. Do I support abortion? No, not in all cases but It really isn’t my decision as I’m a man. I believe that if a woman needs an abortion for whatever reason thats between her and God. Just as I ask for His guidance so should she. She will know His will in the matter just as he reveals the truth to me. I want to belong to a church because fellowshipping with those who also believe in Him is the only way to learn and grow in faith and helping me to get closer to Him. At this point in my life I’m not so sure I can continue to attend a church that asks me to follow them blindly and perhaps ignore what God wants me to do. I will continue to ask His guidance in the matter and when He shows me the answer then I’ll know what to do. And if you don’t mind me asking, what do mean by “joiners”?
[/QUOTE]
By “joiners” I mean people who belong to a particular brand of faith and follow the tenets of that faith, usually in a church. This is as opposed to people who just believe in a god of some sort and don’t necessarily see themselves as part of a denomination. They are not tethered to rules, books, buildings or spiritual leaders.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
By “joiners” I mean people who belong to a particular brand of faith and follow the tenets of that faith, usually in a church. This is as opposed to people who just believe in a god of some sort and don’t necessarily see themselves as part of a denomination. They are not tethered to rules, books, buildings or spiritual leaders.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks
[QUOTE=Miller]
Which has absolutely fuck-all to do with the discussion. You can’t duck the analogy by getting into a dick-measuring, “Who was more oppressed” contest. The comparison between marriage laws and segregation laws is on point because it illustrates that seperate, parrallel social structures are never going to be equal when one of those social structures was creating specifically to target a disliked minority. How badly that minority was treated in the past does not affect the validity of the analogy in the slightest.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t drag it into the discussion, T-Bonham (I think) did, and he (so I assume, apologies if he’s a she), and you, are wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The struggle for civil rights that the American blacks were subjected to is, wait, I will repeat this loudly for you in the back, THE STRUGGLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS THAT AMERICAN BLACKS WERE SUBJECTED TO IS NOT THE SAME AS ONE CHURCH DISALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGE. THE COMPARISONS ARE NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE
Let’s do a wee comparison, shall we:
**Black People: ** Gay people:
**Were purchased and owned **
Nope
**Were forced to perform labor **
***No again ** *
**Couldn’t vote **
Vehement voters, the gays
**Had to use certian restaurants,
water fountains, and seats on public trans. **
Nope, nope, and nope.
**Were hunted when they “escaped” **
Negative
**Were lynched with public support **
Some were, but certianly not to the degree that one sees in black history, and very certianly minus the overt public support
Scenario: If I was gay and white in Georgia in, say, 1925. I could just pretend I wasnt gay, carry on with some girl, and although I was denying my true nature, I could walk around in relative safety. Put the black hetero man in that same circumstance, and all the aforementioned list items apply.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Boo-fucking-hoo.
[/QUOTE]
Fuck you, dimwit. You want to put, Martin Luther King on the same level as say, Sir Elton John, you go ahead. Let me know how that works out.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Try and stop me.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the beauty of freedom ain’t it? I can’t, and no one else can either.
Here’s the thing, and YMMV of course, I don’t have a problem with civil marriage for the LGBT crowd. In fact I’m for it, but what’s just as galling as the fact that the gov’t won’t get off the schnide and get the civil marriage (i.e. equal protection under the law) thing done, is the fact that people decidely not in charge of an organization, and using what they consider to be a majority as a reason, presume to tell the people actually in charge of an organization how the organization should be run.
Should majority rule? Yep. Does it? Nope. Otherwise, our country would be a LOT different, and Iraq would be it’s own mess that we would no longer be in.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
He’s talking about why he does what he does, not about what religious folks do. Nice try. : pats **MrDibble ** on the head :
[/QUOTE]
Nice try - he was talking about why he feels religious intolerance of gays is morally wrong. I’d say this was a post on the subject of religion. “Every. single. one.” of which supposedly makes his hatred clear. Yet all I get from that one is (excuse me, DT) love for his fellow oppressed persons.
Sure, I’ve read enough of his posts to know DT has no love for the religious, but I’m getting sick of the little meme that all DT does is vent his hate. You were the one with the personal attack there, and he hadn’t even addressed you. Nor did you actually prove him wrong. Any excuse to put the boot in, I guess.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Nice try - he was talking about why he feels religious intolerance of gays is morally wrong. I’d say this was a post on the subject of religion. “Every. single. one.” of which supposedly makes his hatred clear. Yet all I get from that one is (excuse me, DT) love for his fellow oppressed persons.
Sure, I’ve read enough of his posts to know DT has no love for the religious, but I’m getting sick of the little meme that all DT does is vent his hate. You were the one with the personal attack there, and he hadn’t even addressed you. Nor did you actually prove him wrong. Any excuse to put the boot in, I guess.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually, Der Trihs was disingenuously claiming that all the hating comes from the religious side,
and all I did was state that there’s plenty of hate on his side of the divide. DT hates religion and everything it stands for - there’s no argument about that and I doubt he’d even bother to deny it, or even see any reason why he should; I imagine he’s proud of it.
He was talking about why he feels it necessary to stick his oar into a fight that he doesn’t have a dog in ( 
:shrug: ), not, for one post at least, giving his opinion on religion itself - that probably explains why he managed to dial down the vitriol a notch. But it’ll be back, depend on it.
Love for his fellow oppressed persons? One more excuse to spew about Christianity, no more.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
No, actually, Der Trihs was disingenuously claiming that all the hating comes from the religious side,
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing disingenous about it - he was replying to Omegaman, and he put the word haters in quotes even, FFS. And he’s right - in this specific instance all the hating is coming from the Christians.
But you had to drag a general complaint into a specific dialogue, and that’s what I was pointing out as being just a little bit like … shadowing him around.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Actually I think you’re missing his point.
The government should get out of the ceremonial “ooo, it’s a Marriage, combine your souls in holy matrimony! loose the doves!” business.
The churches should get out of the legal “join this pair in an officially recognized partnership contract with benefits of various kinds” business.
Want to join in a partnership without benefit of church oversight? Fine. Knock yourself out. Sign the paper and affirm your commitment in front of a judge. Want to call it a marriage when you’re done? Great. Whatever.
Want to join in a marriage but not entangle yourself legally? Fine. Stand at the front of a church and call yourself married. Want the formal benefits? Great, sign the state paper and affirm your commitment.
Two separate things. It’s already kinda sorta like that anyway. Let’s just make it a done deal.
[/QUOTE]
What Cervaise said.
The reason I think the government should get out of the marriage business is to sisdestep the gay rights issue entirely and let anyone marry who they want. I understand that is not the best scenario – personally I’d be much happier if the majority of American voters decided tomorrow “you know what? Telling people who they can love and marry is wrong” and threw out all the one man and one woman laws.
But if you can’t immediately get what you want and deserve you don’t just stand there and shout until you do.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
There’s nothing disingenous about it - he was replying to Omegaman, and he put the word haters in quotes even, FFS. And he’s right - in this specific instance all the hating is coming from the Christians.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure that I would qualify either (a) a refusal to extend religious marriage to gays or (b) a decision to do so by a razor-thin margin, as"hatred," but I guess when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
What Cervaise said.
The reason I think the government should get out of the marriage business is to sisdestep the gay rights issue entirely and let anyone marry who they want.
[/QUOTE]
This is my position, too. Have civil marriage (or civil unions) for everyone under the law, with the same rules and the same benefits, and you have to go down to the court house and get it. And then have religious marriage in the church of your choice if you wish and if your church will allow it. That way if you belong to a church that says only lefthanded blue-eyed stutterers can marry, that’s your business and your church’s. Exclude whoever the hell you want on religous grounds, just don’t apply a legal double standard.
Wow, buttonjockey, I was entirely on the other side of this issue, but when you used a really big font, it totally changed my mind!
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Let’s do a wee comparison, shall we:
**Black People: ** Gay people:
**Were purchased and owned **
Nope
**Were forced to perform labor **
***No again ** *
**Couldn’t vote **
Vehement voters, the gays
**Had to use certian restaurants,
water fountains, and seats on public trans. **
Nope, nope, and nope.
**Were hunted when they “escaped” **
Negative
**Were lynched with public support **
Some were, but certianly not to the degree that one sees in black history, and very certianly minus the overt public support
Scenario: If I was gay and white in Georgia in, say, 1925. I could just pretend I wasnt gay, carry on with some girl, and although I was denying my true nature, I could walk around in relative safety. Put the black hetero man in that same circumstance, and all the aforementioned list items apply.
[/quote]
Do try to pay attention. No one is claiming that the oppression of gays in this country is on the same level as the historical oppression of blacks. What is being claimed is that a specific suggested remedy to social inequity is similar to a previous social policy that, as it happened, increased social inequity. Screaming your head off about KKK lynchings doesn’t have a goddamned thing to do with the analogy. It just makes you look like a hysterical moron.
You really don’t get how this whole “analogy” thing works at all, do you?
See, generally speaking, when you make an analogy, it should be between two subjects that have a couple things in common, but not everything in common. In this thread, you’ve bitched about one analogy because the two things being compared weren’t identical, and now you’ve offered an analogy between two things that nothing in common. As I suspect this is a side effect of you being as thick as two short planks, I’m guessing my explanation here is wasted. But hope springs eternal, so I’ve gone ahead and posted it anyway.
You’re right. I mean, sure, I’ve got friends who are gay, and Christian, and who are hurt by the stances their churches have taken against them. But screw those guys. This decision doesn’t affect me directly, so why should I care about it?
Der Trihs You are a fascinating one. You are all for sexual freedom but against religious freedom, nice.
So I am free to jizz in whatever receptacle I see fit and should receive no ill will for it, but if I choose to organize a community around shared principles that you happen to disagree with I am a hateful bigot.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Actually I think you’re missing his point.
The government should get out of the ceremonial “ooo, it’s a Marriage, combine your souls in holy matrimony! loose the doves!” business.
The churches should get out of the legal “join this pair in an officially recognized partnership contract with benefits of various kinds” business.
Want to join in a partnership without benefit of church oversight? Fine. Knock yourself out. Sign the paper and affirm your commitment in front of a judge. Want to call it a marriage when you’re done? Great. Whatever.
Want to join in a marriage but not entangle yourself legally? Fine. Stand at the front of a church and call yourself married. Want the formal benefits? Great, sign the state paper and affirm your commitment.
Two separate things. It’s already kinda sorta like that anyway. Let’s just make it a done deal.
[/QUOTE]
This is basically what I came in here to say. I think separating the legal and social functions of marriage makes perfect sense.