Clarification, sir: the *contract *was not called one thing or the other based on the genders of the parties. Within the contract itself there entailed different roles, rights and duties to each party, and that is true of many contracts: lessor/lessee, tenant/landlord, seller/buyer, employer/employee.
It is not “employment” when it’s between Joe the bar owner and his barmaid Jill, and called a different thing when it’s between Jane the lawyer and her secretary Gina; it’s not an “apartment lease” when it’s between landlord Bruce McFab (sorry!) and Mr. and Mrs. Bob and Connie, and called another thing when it’s between landlord Jesús Heterondez and Mrs. and Mrs. Joan and Katie. If Gina’s contract is virtual indentured servitude, or if Bruce is a slumlord, it’s a separate matter.
I even say, in my Notebooks “The Bible may be the oldest, most continually used Rorschach test in Western civilization. Because which parts of the Bible someone chooses to follow and which parts someone chooses to ignore tell a lot about that person.”
Up to post 34, before Eternal Truth jumped in with pontifications and unimportant semantics, 3 posts were off-topic.
Ignoring ET’s posts and the responses, after #34 I saw the following, up to Astorian’s post #62 (which I should have quoted, rather than your reply)
two jokes,
one reply that was about gay marriage in general, but it was relevant in the context of what it replied to, which was about the Biblical argument about homosexuality
one rant against Christianity
one post that religion shouldn’t be imposed, which is beside my question
So, up to that point, definitely far fewer than 80% of posts were about “Why do gays want to call their relationship a ‘marriage’?” Actually, zero posts were about that point. After that it engendered a bit of discussion, which I’m not interested in discussing here, because it’s discussed elsewhere.
I respectfully request we take the discussion of what to call gay marriage elsewhere. I’m not a mod, I can’t enforce it, and I don’t even think it’s appropriate for a moderator to enforce it. It’s just a polite request.
Some anti-gay Christians are so desperate to not be called “merely bigots” that they construct cockamamie personas on the Internet of “people who are just crusaders for the integrity of the dictionary and are definitely not Christians no sirree” and post 2000 times out of an insatiable desire for the liberals they hate so much to mark them with the “not bigoted” seal of approval. Weird, eh?
Look, you’ve asked nicely and I’d like to not derail the discussion you want to have. BUT the fact is that many Christians who you might deem “anti-gay” due to their stance on SS marriage, who you think are bigots, are not bigots. They simply don’t think that “marriage” should be extended to anything other than one man + one woman. And part of the proof that they are not bigots is that many would be perfectly happy to extended to SS couples all the legal benefits and privileges available to OS couples. So, your request is really asking to ignore facts that go against the premise in the very title of your OP. Tell me, do you really think that is a good and fair way to debate?
Also, you must have misunderstood my point about “80%”. It was not that 80% of your thread talked about things other than the heart of your OP, it was that 80%, hell 100%, is talked about in other threads, as well. So for you to point to one part of the discussion and say, "Oh this is discussed elsewhere, go talk about it there, while it is still germane to the discussion, is odd to say the least.
This. The antis came out against civil unions whenever they were proposed. Civil unions were equated to gay marriage any time it came to an actual vote. They were NOT content to allow us the meat of marriage without the name. I have no idea why magellan is trying to delude himself here.
That’s like saying, “I’m not racist, I just think blacks should drink from different water fountains.”
Yeah, if you think marriage needs to be preserved for “one man and one woman,” you’re a bigot. Sorry, that’s just how it works. Either own the label, or stop treating gays as second class citizens. There’s no pass given for just being a “little bit” discriminatory.
Doesn’t prove anything. Bigotry is not an all-or-nothing proposition. What you’ve proved is that they’re less bigoted than someone like Rick Santorum. But as long as they’re holding that homosexuals should have less rights than straights, to any degree, they are engaging in bigotry.
The bible never mentions the abolition of slavery, so Christians, (by your logic), should not support efforts to abolish slavery.
The bible never mentions a Capitalist economic system, so Christians, (by your logic), should never support Capitalism.
The bible never mentions a lot of things and there are Christian groups who, for example, refuse to use buttons to fasten their clothing for that very reason. I notice that most Christians do not actually follow that logic.
Are you proposing that we embrace slavery, again, because God does not prevent it in the bible?
I do not find such attempts at rationalizing specific beliefs persuasive.
And that, of course, is without even getting into the whole issue of whether Christians should be permitted to impose their beliefs on the civil government. I do not recall anyone promoting the idea that Christians must now marry people of the same sex, themselves, or even that Christian denominations be compelled to permit same sex couples to marry within those churches.
The fact that you have a reason, pretend or not, for wanting to institutionalize government discrimination does not change what it is. Why are you so desperate for the people you’re grinding down to validate that you’re not a bad person for doing so? What is the motivation here? If the United Liberals of Earth gave magellan01 the Not A Bigot award tomorrow, what would that mean? Why are you so desperate to make this far-fetched scenario come to pass?
I said in one of the other threads, part of the problem is, nobody believes HIMSELF a bigot. Heck nobody wants to believe the Nice Person Close to Them to be a bigot. Everyone believes themselves to just be holding on fast to a “the line’s drawn HERE” position as to what is right or wrong for what in their heads is some good reason; or the Really Nice Person Close to Them to be only provisionally misguided. And sure, being a hardliner on an ideological right/wrong line is not necessarily bigotry per se… but it damn sure can be a sign of bigotry.
And if every “good reason” other than “sez God” why they should not just stand fast themselves on their side of the line, but also seek to prevent others who don’t share their faith from crossing it in the secular realm, can be knocked down and debunked, then what are people to conclude?
Comments like this have often made this site utterly intolerable. Being a former veteran of most bible themed threads, the level of ignorance of biblical ignorance (without regard to doctrine or interpretation!) at SDMB is nothing shirt of pandemic.
I’d like to add to this discussion even though I’m sure to get bashed.
Now personally, I look at gay marriage as a civil not a religious issue. I’m a Christian but actually ok with gays being allowed to legally be married. Especially in this day and age when marriage has become such a joke anymore (ex. bridezillas, Vegas drive thru wedding chapels, couples marrying in expensive weddings and then divorcing soon after, etc…) but thats another discussion. Gays pay their taxes (they do right?) so they should have the right to legally marry and accept the good and the bad that comes with it.
But that doesnt mean my church has to perform or accept it. Like many groups, my church has strict moral guidelines one must agree to before becoming a member. If you dont like it, their is a liberal Presbyterian church just down the street. That church does all kinds of gay friendly stuff.