FWIW, my concern with incest is when it’s coercive. If an grown woman wants to marry her adult brother, or two husbands, or a German shepherd, or the Berlin Wall, it’s their business, not mine. I’m busy enough worrying about my own life.
What is the non-hateful reason you’re against gay marriage, David?
I don’t believe that such “non-hateful” reasons exist. Anti-SSM people keep saying the have perfectly valid, rational, non-biogted reasons for opposing SSM - but they never seem to actually be able to come up with one. I recall we had a thread some time ago where anti-SSM people were challenged to come up with such a reason; it was page after page of tap-dancing around the lack of such a reason, or “reasons” that were laughably bad & obviously just excuses.
And as said it really doesn’t matter; if you act as if you hate people, the result is the same regardless of what is going on in your head.
“Meaningful” is, well, meaningless. And obnoxious since it implies that a relationship between a same sex couple isn’t meaningful, that a relation that ends in divorce isn’t meaningful, etc.
Yes, and yes. Those are both cruel, destructive positions to take. Indistinguishable from a position motivated by hate.
Opposing lies about domestic violence is in an entirely different category from the rest of your positions. Although with the rest of your positions I can’t help but wonder if your definition of a “false accusation of domestic violence” translates to “all of them”.
Ah-hah! It’s really all about “gays having sex is icky!”, isn’t it?
Oh, and “heterosexual sex” does include all sorts of sex acts besides “penis in vagina”. Most heterosexual sex has nothing to do with “creating life” or we’d be breeding like rabbits on fertility drugs.
Among a lot of rather silly claims, this has to be the absolute silliest you have posted in this thread.
I have never encountered a homosexual who would have been “insulted” by the phrase “heterosexual sex.”
Heckler: “Heterosexual sex”!"
Gay Guy: “You bastard!”
Gays aren’t insulted by the phrase “heterosexual sex.” But they might be insulted if they’re told
their form of sex is “artificial” and wrong. They might be insulted if they’re told they should be having
“heterosexual sex” because it’s the correct, superior sex, and the only sex that God approves of.
You know, I’ve been on this site for about 12 years now, and I’ve seen all kinds of questions and arguments and statements. But this has to win some kind of prize for its . . . I was going to say “absurdity” or “senselessness,” but I don’t think those words are strong enough.
Inanity.
To respond to the ridiculous “everyone has the right to an opposite-sex marriage” point, which is perhaps more dignifying than it deserves, one could just as easily say “everyone has the right to marry a woman” and then find the gender discrimination inherent in the restriction of that right to men. There is no such analogy for polygamy.
The government currently allows some people to engage in two-person marriages. Therefore, by many sets of principles including equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the government must allow ALL people (of consenting age and blah blah blah) to engage in those marriages. There is no right to polygamy under the principle of equality. There may be people who think there should be or is a right to polygamous marriage based on some other principle, though outside of the ridiculous hypotheticals of homophobes I’ve never heard of any. But polygamy as a rebuttal to the equality argument just doesn’t work on any legal or logical level.
“Religion”, as you call it, hates gay people. Christians, (who are followers of Jesus Christ and not hypocrites who simply go to church but do not truly love God), do not hate gay people. Homosexuality is indeed considered a sinful lifestyle, but this does not mean that Christians hate gay people. Christians simply cannot and should not approve that lifestyle. With that being said, Christians cannot and should not approve any sinful lifestyle, such as other sexual immorality, gambling, drunkenness, telling lies, and many, many more.
I read one post that said that the book of Corinthians calls women who do not wear a hat in public “whores”. I invite you all to understand that in that cultural and historical context, women who were married were supposed to wear a hat to signify that they were taken, or that they weren’t married yet. Only prostitutes would not wear a hat to indicate their availability to offer sex for money. Wearing a hat was like wearing a wedding ring today. Nothing weird about it, right? The difference is that today even women with a ring might be prostitutes 
Please don’t believe what other people tell you about Christianity until you take the chance to read the Bible.
Yes, that is what it means. And “loving God” does not make people nice; generally, it makes them the opposite.
Comparisons which demonstrate that yes, it’s all about hatred.
What the Bible says is less important than what Christians actually do and believe. Not that the Bible is anything better than a collection of myths & dogma written by barbarians.
You might want to have a look at the description of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
It might be comfortable to assure oneself that anyone who behaves in a bad manner is not “really” a Christian, but it would be more accurate to say that Christians who behave badly are sinners.
Many of the posters on this board who display antipathy to Christianity or Christians have read the bible and have simply taken a different message from it than you have.
Hell, I’d venture to say a careful reading of the Bible is what CAUSED a lot of us to have antipathy to Christianity.
As a pro-polygamy person, this is absolutely right. There is no useful analogy between polygamy and allowing gays to marry–they ought two separate legal structures, because marriage as a structure assumes the two-person relationship for a great many things. I’m not holding my breath for polygamy to be legal until we are generally free to create binding must-be-recognized contracts for partner rights currently only granted under the omnibus of marriage.
Similarly, bestiality (lack of consent is the difference) is unrelated. Incest (suspect consent due to presumption of power imbalance) is only vaguely related, but the specter of rape and/or genetic issues there is more than enough to justify state interest–there is no similarly powerful justification for state interest in the genders of a married couple.
To me, trying to bind polygamy and same-sex marriage is like saying that because you aren’t allowed to racially discriminate, that means you have to hire six black people for every job.
More of the same…will the real true christian stand up. It seems that a real true christian must be very hard to find, more so a christian who can answer for the attitudes and actions behind the label.
Either take responsibility for the outcome of your judging “sinful lifestyles”, or be in denial and continue to make your silly claim that christians do not hate gay people.
One reason that religion might hate gays that I have not seen advanced so far (apologies if I missed it) is that it serves the needs of the church leaders. It unifies and binds together the church’s followers who join together in their hatred of the despised out-group practice. And although Christianity DOES have the whole “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing as an important precept, I think it’s reasonable to say that a lot of Christians kinda MISS that lil ol’ point. Basically, the Church takes an antipathy toward gays that already exists in their followers and uses it to make the flock more attached to the church, by rewarding their sense of superiority toward those evil gay bastids and bastidesses.
And you know, a lot of straight people DO find gay sex icky and I suspect the churches rely on that too.
Another aspect of this is that, since you can’t tell who is or is not homosexual, it tends to make them paranoid of all those who don’t belong to their group.
Agreed, as I said:
I did once tell someone that he fucked like a straight guy. Does that count?
Your post did say that it’s a way of controlling people, but that’s rather generic, I was saying it was specifically a way to bind followers to the religion. Basically you are offering them a sense of superiority as a reward for being in the group.