I thought so. You’re explanation seemed off from what I’ve heard. The problem is, gay people have been able to “flaunt their sin” without gay marriage. As far as I can tell, what the Christians homophobes are actually upset about is that the “Christian nation” that is the U.S. is actively condoning “the gay lifestyle.”
They actually seem to think that not being able to get married was something that would maybe prevent people from “choosing to be gay.” It honestly seems similar to one of the pro-life arguments, making women have the baby so they’ll choose not to have “illicit” sex.
Wow. I hadn’t known that about Rev. Moore. I’d say the Church needs more like him, but that’s one fucked up thing to do. Too bad he wasn’t able to see what happened last Friday.
Hmm . . . just called my wife, and we’re still married! <Gasp!> I’ll check tonight on the sanctity level, just to make sure there were no side-effects of the ruling.
So today one of those protestors told me “Next thing you know, they’ll be having sex in the streets.” I asked him to show me where in the Supreme Court decision that was allowed, because I missed it. He said “Well, it’s going to happen. Wait and see.” I told him if he could predict the future that well, he should be playing the lottery.
I find that nothing shuts up idiots like this so quickly as offering to make a bet with them. “$20 says there will be no sex in the streets in the next month in any major American city as a result of the SCOTUS decision. Deal?”
I wouldn’t know about that - there seems, or so I’ve been told - a branch of exhibitionist pr0n set outside. And we know of at least one person who wanted to do it in the road. But if the SSM ruling leads to more sex in the streets or anywhere, good for it.
So long as they don’t frighten the horses.
Perhaps. But if someone complaining about the awful impact of the SCOTUS decision won’t put their money where their mouth is, you’ll have shown they’re just jabbering.
Or, like many fundies, they think gambling is inherently wrong. It still totally floored me when Bricker proposed his stuff–I just assumed every strict Christian thought it was wrong.
Re: “I never thought I’d see this during my lifetime.” I’m hearing this a ton right now, just like I did seven years ago during Obama’s first inauguration. America has changed beyond anything I could have imagined as of, say, ten years ago. I’m not hearing people say they thought they’d never live to see NASCAR attempt to ban Confederate flags from the grounds of its races, but there’s another shocking turn of events.
The other thought is on my experiences as a high school teacher. Virtually all of us here are of an age when being out in high school was unthinkable. Now it’s weirder for a high school kid to be closeted, and being out is no stranger than dyed hair. About six years ago I remember overhearing a student saying she was a lesbian (I think the exact words to a classmate were “I don’t have sex with boys”, and the context was clear that she was sexually active on some level) and there was no reaction whatsoever in a group of 14 and 15 year olds. I was pleasantly shocked. Since the dawn of humanity, everyone has known gay people, but only recently have most Americans been cognizant of that fact, and no one more so than youth.
But Bricker being Catholic, may gamble, in moderation. Which is another point in matters like this, even “strict” Christianity is not monolithic in its interpretations of every single one of the Teachings. American Fundamentalism is a peculiarly both intense and broad version of anti-worldly reaction.
So even on this issue some strict Christians may react differently.
[/sidetrack]
And if the only thing keeping the gays from having sex in the streets was a ban on marriage, what was keeping the rest of us from doing it?