Thanks.
IANAC. But I think I can understand why same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to the sensibilities of many who are. Because same-sex marriage is not a sin; it’s the display and elevation and celebration of a sinful life. If it’s wrong to sin, it’s even more wrong to put on a big display of one’s sinning, or to present it as a virtue.
In that sense the SSM opponents are surprisingly similar to Occupy.
Well, I suppose I’m flattered that my snark makes the site intolerable. Would you mind correcting some of our terrible Biblical ignorance?
My point, however arrogant it might have come across, was intended only to convey that the sentiments in the OP are not particularly new or unusual, and that we’ve seen the arguments before. I did not communicate that very well, certainly.
But instead of just grousing about how things are intolerable and ignorant and arrogant, please help me out. What ignorance is being perpetuated in this thread that has not yet been addressed?
This is just a red herring of an argument…
I was raised a Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church has not, does not, will not marry a divorced person. Even though divorced people remarrying is legal. Even when those legally divorced, now have a legal marriage license people are members of that Catholic church. Still won’t marry them.
No, your church will not have to perform or accept a homosexual marriage. And the government’s not going to make them. The government will never make them.
Doesn’t mean your church’s own membership can’t push for a change within your church. So someday your church may perform homosexual weddings, but it will do so because your church decided it wanted to.
So this argument that keeps getting raised about churches being forced to perform homosexual weddings is ridiculous.
Huh???
Someone might’ve responded to this earlier, but just thought I’d put in my thoughts quickly since I don’t have time to read the full thread until later:
Nothing’s wrong with it, just so long as it’s their choice, just like for everyone else.
But if you’re saying that celibacy is the only moral option for persons not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, then there’s this problem where most of us Christians regard the celibate life as a particular calling. A calling is when you believe God’s communicating with you personally to direct your choices.
But saying celibacy is the only moral option for gays is saying that they are called, en masse, to celibacy - that God spoke to them, not in any sort of personal manner, but in a very impersonal, opaque sort of way, by giving them this orientation, this set of desires, and having other people interpret that orientation for them as their having received this calling.
And this is bullshit. You don’t discover that you have a calling from God when someone else tells you. If God’s calling you, you know.
This is absurd. Many states were fighting adoption for same sex couples long after they were given the right to marry. Utah is an example of this.
So marriages are OK now for gays because they’ve been reduced to second rate status?
(hint: “that’s” is another one of these words which take an apostrophe.)
“doesn’t” and “don’t” also take apostrophes.
I would say that holding on the outdated ideas of morality based on iron age sheep farmers well into modern times is an act of willful ignorance and bigotry.
Just not the name itself, since that would be … what is the word you like to use in claiming that view for yourself? Oh yes … “diluting” marriage.
No, nothing bigoted there.
The entire basis of Harlan’s dissent in Plessy was that segregation was a “badge of slavery.” It doesn’t matter if separate but equal is in fact equal (which, as you may recall from Brown, it is legally impossible for it to be) – the mere fact of government-imposed separation is a statement of inferiority which is impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This is settled law, but that will never stop people from arguing in circles.
That is an interesting argument. Does it mean that you would agree that those, who would *not *be perfectly happy to extended all these legal benefits and privileges to same sex couples are in fact bigots?
You said “part of the proof” so maybe not. But then I would like to see the rest of it.
As I understand your post, the point you are making is that for many Christians the debate really only comes down to an (in their view) appropriate application of the term marriage, with no value statement attached. I would agree that there is no much of a basis for calling such a person a bigot. However, the way I perceive it, many of those who oppose calling a same sex partnership a marriage do so, because they consider it a “lesser” form of partnership.
The bible never once mentions air conditioning, cars, or MP3 players, but you probably avail yourself of at least one of them.
And you don’t get to retire, either:
But okay, back to what you said: Assume that god created man and woman. Fine. That doesn’t mean that all men are going to be attracted to women or vice versa. People just don’t operate that simply. You can’t command a person to love the opposite sex. They can’t force it.
I think it’s not at all odd to point out posts that are off-topic, when they are exactly the topic of another thread. I also think it’s reasonable to address a question that happens to be discussed in another thread, when the relevant posts are buried amid a largely semantic discussion that doesn’t interest me.
Well, not quite nobody.
I’m a bigot. In my desire to not be a bigot, I find it’s most helpful if I assume I have prejudices and to be on the lookout for them. Frankly, I think the best hope anyone has of being less bigoted is to assume that they have prejudices and face them. It’s a lot easier to say than to do. I displayed a bit of anti-Christian bigotry in the OP. My bad.
You really want to to there?
Please tell me that you have sold all your possessions and given the money for them to the poor. Then we can talk about “following Jesus”.
(This is probably not the direction intended.)
1 in 1600 people were created by your deity as TRUE HERMAPHODITES. If you add in all the less drastic examples of “intersex” in general, including sexual chromosones tallies other than XX and XY, the total comes to about 5% of the population.
Given THAT, it’s a little strange that your deity not only wants all sex to be with a man and his wife… or wives… or concubines…
but also…
Even goes so far as to prohibit dressing according to the opposite gender. Whatever “opposite” may mean to a true hermaphrodite.
And it doesn’t matter, because the right of freedom of speech would almost immediately have had the same effect.
Suppose that the Supreme Court had said, No, same-sex couples cannot get married, however states must provide “Civil Union” contracts that have all of the same benefits, and the Federal Government must recognize this also. (Allowing such couples to file joint income tax returns, etc.)
Well, even though Jack and Joe aren’t “married” they’re going to say they are. They have the right to say anything they want. And a lot of the rest of us are also going to say they are too. The common use of language would come around to calling these unions “Marriages.”
There’s no way to forbid it!
(Just as, right now, there’s no way to forbid a religious believer from saying, “Jack and Joe aren’t really married.” A lot of people are saying exactly that…and it’s perfectly legal.)
You can legislate some things, but not terms used by the public in their everyday speech.
(And O.J. Simpson is a murderer, goddamit.)
Oh now that is one keen argument which I’m sure goes over well in your little atheist circle but has absolutely NO impact on me.
Next.
Yeah, I was ok with gays calling them “unions” or something. Whatever just go down to the courthouse and sign a paper in front of a judge saying your sharing financial responsibilities.
You seem to think your agreement is required for this. Frankly, we don’t give two shits anymore. It’s done. You lost.
O,h how generous of you. You still stood on the side of the issue along side bigots. It’s always been about denying equal rights to gay people. You’ll have to catch up and join them with the next losing issue. The gay marriage debate has been settled in this country.
Yeah, but your religion has a lot of impact on those who think it is a pile of crap. If the faithful don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, fine with me, and fine with pretty much everyone. If they want to prevent other people from doing it, they had better get out of the way or present some pretty strong evidence this god of theirs actually exists.
Seriously, UrbanRedneck, if you are going to tell me your bible proclaims “XYZ” then you need to prove that god actually wrote the bible if you want it to make any difference.