Nah, too obvious.
It certainly could be.
Who gets to define “marriage”?
How do you know they don’t exist? I wouldn’t go so far as to make that claim.
This is just hateful nonsense, and the kind of thing that makes folks like me think that your particular brand is Christianity is a hateful and profoundly immoral philosophy.
There are plenty of loving families with children led by very admirable gay couples (recognized as married by the law and most of society) who are wonderful citizens and parents. It’s hateful and disgusting that you’re willing to proclaim publicly, when those children might hear or read your words, that their parents’ marriage doesn’t exist. Are you sure that’s the type of person you want to be, spreading hate to children about their families?
It’s unfortunate that you feel that way, as “my brand of Christianity” is neither hateful nor immoral, but actually teaches the exact opposite, love and virtue. I also find your repeated use of the word “hate/hateful” strange.
Who gets to define “marriage”?
You and I appear to have fundamentally incompatible understanding of the concepts of love and virtue. Certainly, nothing you’ve posted here demonstrates either of those qualities.
Anyone is free to define their own relationship as a “marriage” if they want, but the only definition that actually matters - that is, the one that conveys tangible rights and obligations - would be the government. Outside that strictly legal context, I don’t think anyone is in a place to tell someone else that their marriage doesn’t exist. I certainly don’t think they can do that out of one side of their mouth, and then claim that they honor or respect that person out of the other.
You are apparently incapable or unwilling to empathize with the children of married gay couples. If you were capable of this, you would be horrified to publicly proclaim such a hateful thing where they might hear or read it. Try to imagine how you’d feel as a child if someone said their philosophy was “love and virtue”, but told you that your parents’ relationship is not a legitimate marriage, and thus that your family is not a legitimate family.
The white supremacist Christians of your state through the first half of the 20th century would have insisted just as strongly as you do that they only taught “love and virtue”. But they were teaching hate – they were just unaware of the hatefulness of their own teachings. How do you know that you’re not falling into the same trap?
Like all human-created words and concepts, humans. If many or most humans believe that “marriage” can encompass gay relationships, then the word and concept of marriage can encompass gay relationships. That’s how language works.
So, they can slaughter you with impunity, then?
Rhetorical again, this time?
So you claim to get to define the morality of your religion and also define marriage based on the morality of your religion.
That’s very convenient.
It’s also why you can’t win this argument. Morality doesn’t come from religion. Religious people certainly like to believe it can, and historically love to impose those beliefs on others. Historically, those others tend to rebel against religious beliefs as soon as they have the power to do so.
That power is evident now. Your stated morality has been tossed into the trash heap of history, along with the belief in other bigoted hatefulness that your religion loudly proclaimed, like the inferiority of people with black skin and the impossibility of marrying such a person, the fact that women were helpless servants of males, and that Jews were evil, you know, just because. On any logical basis, your religion’s beliefs that gays aren’t equal to straights, that they cannot marry one another, and that procreation can only happen by sexual intercourse between a man and a woman are just more “truths” that must be fought with all the vigor that your earlier “truths” were fought.
Note: it has been and will continue to be. Your side thoroughly lost this bigoted nonsense. You should stop being concerned about it and instead be concerned about coming up with equally creative arguments to justify all the other bigoted hatereds your religion promulgates that will be fought in the same way in the future.
It does if “moral code” is just a dog-whistle term for personal prejudice, and has nothing whatsoever to do with actual, supportable morality. In this case, in fact, it’s objectively the opposite of morality: it’s the belief that gay people are not entitled to full equal treatment and all human rights just exactly like the rest of us, both under the law and under social custom and mores.
That’s funny, because for many decades the belief “that gay sex is immoral” also made it illegal in many states (and currently in many countries, some of which like to kill gays, though the US only preferred to jail them). And gay marriage itself was illegal in many more, including some states that felt so strongly about it that they felt even laws banning it weren’t enough, and just for extra effect they passed state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. This only ended when the US Supreme Court finally stepped in, but in many states and among the worst of the religious zealots, the old bigotries remain.
Your OP and subsequent arguments are just nonsensical obfuscations.
It’s not blithe. It’s carefully thought through, and it’s a major reason why various Christian organizations are losing membership and sway - people are making that same calculus and realizing, “hang on, this is bullshit”. Because it is. There is no case to be made that gay sex is immoral. Reject religious concerns, and there is literally nothing to go on. You cannot make a principled, meaningful case
Good for you! Do you understand the link between your views and the views of the cops who pulled this move? Or the parents of the Anoka-Hennepin school district (or any number of other bigots that make the lives of LGBT kids around them a living hell)?
You said it, man.
In the context of legal marriage? The state. If I can go down to the county office, get my marriage certified just like anyone else, and gain the benefits that come with that, and if your church decides to keep its silliness to itself, you could define marriage as “any occasion involving the exchange of at least one washing machine” and it wouldn’t bother me. Of course, the problem is that it doesn’t keep its silliness to itself, and insists again and again that the government kowtow to its definition of marriage.
Officially, at least. Extrajudicial murders of gay men/lesbians/transpeople are still winked at far too often…the “gay panic” defense and its variants STILL lead to acquittals.
Marriage is both a religious institution for many (but certainly not for all) and more importantly, a very strong and foundational social institution. When talking about gay marriage, the social definitions and ramifications are the most pertinent. No one is trying to force any particular churches or religious practitioners to perform gay marriages, although increasingly, many are doing so. The important thing is social recognition and social acceptance of SSM, including the full legal rights of marriage under the law in matters like property rights and taxes, but also in the culture of social acceptance. Because otherwise, gay people are being demeaned as second-class citizens not entitled to all the same human rights and social rights and privileges as the rest of us. That’s plain bigotry.
I really hope EscAlaMike reads both those links, and, in particular, the response in the second one, as that’s pretty much tailor made for him.
“LOL,” are you for real?
I already laid out what I mean by “respect.” Let’s say it comes out that–Secretary of Defense might not be realistic, but chief of police in a small town sure is–let’s say it comes out that a candidate for Chief of Police is a member of the World Church of the Creator. Let’s say that in his off-hours he’s been seen, as WCotC members have been, wearing a shirt that idolizes a racist serial murderer.
My question isn’t whether it’s wise for the city council to ask him, “Do you believe that nonwhite people should be exterminated in a racial war?”
My question is whether you think such a question would be an unconstitutional religious test for office.
EscAlaMike, you are not making a moral judgement. You are making an immoral judgement. The judgement you are making is wrong, hurtful, and hateful. I do not know how you justify to yourself making such hateful judgements while claiming to be motivated by love.
But really, who gets to define “love”?