Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Then I will repeat my post.
"Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.

he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it. "

When dealing with people, both of those reasons are rooted in bigotry.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
You're missing the point (@ jr)

The reason people would bring Bigot to the foreground with gay marriage and not with those...
Not believing in God myself does not prevent you from believing in God and privately worshiping. A thousand people could not believe in God and you would still be able to.

If a thousand people oppose gay marriage, they can prevent a gay person from getting married.

If someone says they believe in aliens, do you automatically assume they are a crackpot crazy?

If someone says they believe in bigfoot, do you think they are automatically a lunatic?

If someone says they believe in God, do you automatically declare them delusional?

If you answer yes to those....perhaps you need to be less judgmental of people.

All I am saying is that you shouldn't automatically rush to judgment of someone's opinion or belief based on one statement with zero explaination or context behind it.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
If someone says they believe in aliens, do you automatically assume they are a crackpot crazy?

If someone says they believe in bigfoot, do you think they are automatically a lunatic?

If someone says they believe in God, do you automatically declare them delusional?

If you answer yes to those....perhaps you need to be less judgmental of people.

All I am saying is that you shouldn't automatically rush to judgment of someone's opinion or belief based on one statement with zero explination or context behind it.

No to all of the above, but I accept that people are complex things.
I have friends who hold strong views that I don't, and those are their views. I would not say they are bigots. I would say it is bigoted behaviour to inhibit someone else's life based on your personal beliefs.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
You're missing the point (@ jr)

The reason people would bring Bigot to the foreground with gay marriage and not with those...
Not believing in God myself does not prevent you from believing in God and privately worshiping. A thousand people could not believe in God and you would still be able to.

If a thousand people oppose gay marriage, they can prevent a gay person from getting married.

Reverse that:

If a thousand people do not believe in god, they can prevent religios people from....(insert religious stuff).

It goes both ways.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Then I will repeat my post.
"Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.

he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it. "

When dealing with people, both of those reasons are rooted in bigotry.

Um...NOOO?


Please refresh yourself on the definition of bigotry.
In English the word "bigot" refers to a prejudiced, closed-minded person who is intolerant or hateful toward people of a different group, especially racial or religious.[1][2][3]

Neither of the above is intolerant or hateful.

For example, myself. Gambling. I refrain from office pools and such because the Bar viewed gambling as violating ethics. I am not bigoted against gambling, but I am bound by an code of conduct that says it violates an agreed upon code of conduct.

The first is an assumption of marriage as contractual law to pass inheritence to children. newsflash but that really was marriage in the West. Its outdated now with modern legal codes and science allowing the creation of children in a gay marriage, but that doesn't make it bigotted.

The second, like my code instance, is a religious code. In this instance he is making a plain jane statement per the code he belongs to. WE have family friends who were opposed to a divorced person remarrying. They've stayed friends and bear no malice, but thats part of their religious code. You mixed that up with people who are using religion TO HIDE their own bigotry.

"I do not believe in gay marriage"

It really is no different than "I do not believe in the death penalty."
"I do not believe in shooting people."

So it is a preference, it could lead to "I would actively oppose gay marriage.".
It at least firmly places it in the realm of "belief" than a logical choice.

I look at it the same as a legal and emotional "partnership" and really does not have to be placed in the trappings of religion.

Thank you Frazz for better illustrating my point that you can believe in something and not be bigoted.

If it is a religious belief, then he may have strong beliefs in it and that's his conviction.

There's also the camp that feels that the State shouldn't get involved in what the Church does (making gay marriage laws) - LGBT people can go to city hall and have a ceremony, but forcing a priest to do something he may not want to do is pretty authoritarian. Considering it's Leftists doing this, this is not unusual. This is what authors/political commentators like Ben Shapiro usually argue in their debates and lectures.

Any other train of argument is just baseless in most cases. I don't think anyone can provide a real solid argument as to why two people of the same gender can't live together and be exclusive forever. That's all marriage really is aside from the legal bindings - but from what I understand the gay community got all those same legal rights and everything a long time ago, the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 in the UK for example. Not sure about the States, though.

Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and he debated another gay man and the argument against gay marriage laws in the UK went something like this: "Gays already had all the same rights as married people (Civil Partnership Act) except for the religious aspects. They used to sit in the back seat of the bus until they finally got a seat in the same front row, but that wasn't good enough for them, they wouldn't stop until they were sitting in the same seat."

Personally I don't care what happens as I'm not religious nor do I care what people do in their private sexual lives. I'm just explaining some of the rationale people use for 'not believing it' as the OP asked.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
You're missing the point (@ jr)

The reason people would bring Bigot to the foreground with gay marriage and not with those...
Not believing in God myself does not prevent you from believing in God and privately worshiping. A thousand people could not believe in God and you would still be able to.

If a thousand people oppose gay marriage, they can prevent a gay person from getting married.

Reverse that:

If a thousand people do not believe in god, they can prevent religios people from....(insert religious stuff).

It goes both ways.

Gay Marriage is a physical act. Belief in these things isn't.
We weren't discussing, "I don't believe you should be able to worship God." but that belief itself cannot be stopped by lack of belief in others.

 redleger wrote:
He just wants "Marriage" to belong to man and woman for the purpose of making children, all the normal religions stuff.

Why do so many people equate 'marriage' with 'having children'...?

Does he also believe that couples who can't or don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry?


The simple fact is that marriage was a state business long before the church appropriated it. Marriage is not a term exclusive to a religious ceremony, and the Christian Church shouldn't get to dictate who can and can't do it anywhere other than amongst their own members.


Although it's also worth pointing out that I don't believe in 'gay marriage' either. I believe in marriage. I don't believe that the gender of those involved is any of my business, outside of my own marriage.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
If it is a religious belief, then he may have strong beliefs in it and that's his conviction.

There's also the camp that feels that the State shouldn't get involved in what the Church does (making gay marriage laws) - LGBT people can go to city hall and have a ceremony, but forcing a priest to do something he may not want to do is pretty authoritarian. Considering it's Leftists doing this, this is not unusual. This is what authors/political commentators like Ben Shapiro usually argue in their debates and lectures.

Any other train of argument is just baseless in most cases. I don't think anyone can provide a real solid argument as to why two people of the same gender can't live together and be exclusive forever. That's all marriage really is aside from the legal bindings - but from what I understand the gay community got all those same legal rights and everything a long time ago, the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 in the UK for example. Not sure about the States, though.

Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and he debated another gay man and the argument against gay marriage laws in the UK went something like this: "Gays already had all the same rights as married people (Civil Partnership Act) except for the religious aspects. They used to sit in the back seat of the bus until they finally got a seat in the same front row, but that wasn't good enough for them, they wouldn't stop until they were sitting in the same seat."

Personally I don't care what happens as I'm not religious nor do I care what people do in their private sexual lives. I'm just explaining some of the rationale people use for 'not believing it' as the OP asked.

Can't speak for the UK, but the main push in the US for gay marriage has been not only equality, but the benefits marriage garners as well. There have been a lot of cases of couples being denied the same rights (power of attorney, military benefits, presence in the emergency room, etc.) because they were civil partners and not legally married.

 jreilly89 wrote:



Can't speak for the UK, but the main push in the US for gay marriage has been not only equality, but the benefits marriage garners as well. There have been a lot of cases of couples being denied the same rights (power of attorney, military benefits, presence in the emergency room, etc.) because they were civil partners and not legally married.

Yeah I suppose in that regard the States are behind on the issue because in the UK: "In 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed and came into effect in December 2005. It created civil partnerships, which gave same-sex couples who entered into them the same rights and responsibilities of marriage. These partnerships were called 'gay marriage' by some of the British media"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1499995/All-embracing-partnership-Act.html

As I said I'm not sure of the American complexities, not sure how widely the issue differs from the United Kingdom.

 Frazzled wrote:



Please refresh yourself on the definition of bigotry.
In English the word "bigot" refers to a prejudiced, closed-minded person who is intolerant or hateful toward people of a different group, especially racial or religious.[1][2][3]

Neither of the above is intolerant or hateful.

For example, myself. Gambling. I refrain from office pools and such because the Bar viewed gambling as violating ethics. I am not bigoted against gambling, but I am bound by an code of conduct that says it violates an agreed upon code of conduct.

The first is an assumption of marriage as contractual law to pass inheritence to children. newsflash but that really was marriage in the West. Its outdated now with modern legal codes and science allowing the creation of children in a gay marriage, but that doesn't make it bigotted.

The second, like my code instance, is a religious code. In this instance he is making a plain jane statement per the code he belongs to. WE have family friends who were opposed to a divorced person remarrying. They've stayed friends and bear no malice, but thats part of their religious code. You mixed that up with people who are using religion TO HIDE their own bigotry.

This is absolutely brilliantly stated. I wish more people understood that just because someone disagrees with something, it does not necessarily mean that they are bigoted, hateful or intolerant.

There is another thread in the OT forum that needs a dose of this in spades.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Then I will repeat my post.
"Well he could have a very contractual definition that marriage is a contract for inheritence purposes of children, to pass lands and title.

he could have a literal religious objection, that per his religion gays cannot be married, any more than he is permitted to eat pork. He's not bigoted against pork, he just can't eat it. "

When dealing with people, both of those reasons are rooted in bigotry.

Um...NOOO?


Please refresh yourself on the definition of bigotry.
In English the word "bigot" refers to a prejudiced, closed-minded person who is intolerant or hateful toward people of a different group, especially racial or religious.[1][2][3]

Neither of the above is intolerant or hateful.

For example, myself. Gambling. I refrain from office pools and such because the Bar viewed gambling as violating ethics. I am not bigoted against gambling, but I am bound by an code of conduct that says it violates an agreed upon code of conduct.

The first is an assumption of marriage as contractual law to pass inheritence to children. newsflash but that really was marriage in the West. Its outdated now with modern legal codes and science allowing the creation of children in a gay marriage, but that doesn't make it bigotted.

The second, like my code instance, is a religious code. In this instance he is making a plain jane statement per the code he belongs to. WE have family friends who were opposed to a divorced person remarrying. They've stayed friends and bear no malice, but thats part of their religious code. You mixed that up with people who are using religion TO HIDE their own bigotry.

And assuming that gay couples can't raise children. Plus I have yet to see someone who is anti-gay marriage want to insist on procreation for the marriage to be legal. Contract claim based on actual reason is invalid.

Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.

I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable

And assuming that gay couples can't raise children. Plus I have yet to see someone who is anti-gay marriage want to insist on procreation for the marriage to be legal. Contract claim based on actual reason is invalid.

You're ignoring history. That was the purpose of marriage. Indeed historically a lack of children was a valid reason to annul a marriage. DOn't forget historically life wasn't gaks and giggles. You grew up young, got married young, and died young.
As noted I agree this argument is outdated, but I made it as at one point it was a valid argument.

Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry.

Objection your honor, argument without supporting evidence.
Sustained.

Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.

However the OP was not noted as trying to force it onto someone else but in response to a question.

I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable

Because you are bigoted against them. Your posting history denotes a hostility towards religion. It would be a bit of personal growth if you reflected on that, and how you could move beyond it.

 skyth wrote:


Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.

I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable

This is a very interesting point. However, it is basically saying that whomever wrote the Bible, wrote it because of homophobia to a certain extent.

Yes there are many things that the Bible states, but it also states specifically that it is a sin to lay with someone of your own gender. Does it not?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 skyth wrote:


Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.

I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable

This is a very interesting point. However, it is basically saying that whomever wrote the Bible, wrote it because of homophobia to a certain extent.

Yes there are many things that the Bible states, but it also states specifically that it is a sin to lay with someone of your own gender. Does it not?

The Bile says a lot of things, including wearing fabrics of more than one material is a sin and pre-marital sex is a sin. The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.

 jreilly89 wrote:
The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.

I absolutely agree with you. Many don't, however. Therein lies the problem.

The Bile says a lot of things, including wearing fabrics of more than one material is a sin and pre-marital sex is a sin. The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.

To YOU. To others it is the literal word of Dog.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 skyth wrote:


Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry. Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.

I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable

This is a very interesting point. However, it is basically saying that whomever wrote the Bible, wrote it because of homophobia to a certain extent.

Yes there are many things that the Bible states, but it also states specifically that it is a sin to lay with someone of your own gender. Does it not?

Marriage only became attached to religion many many many years after the bible was written. The council of Verona in the 1100's is the first time marriage was codified as sacrement. There is also the council of Trent which saw marriages validated only in front of two witnesses and a priest.

Like most things the church really got involved when there was money and control up for grabs.

 Frazzled wrote:

The Bile says a lot of things, including wearing fabrics of more than one material is a sin and pre-marital sex is a sin. The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.

To YOU. To others it is the literal word of Dog.

That's great and all, just don't go getting your church all mixed up in my state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
The Bible is more a general guidelines than hard rules.

I absolutely agree with you. Many don't, however. Therein lies the problem.

No, the problem is people mixing church and state. I can believe whatever I want, but passing laws that all vegans should be beheaded is rather wrong, I'd say.

You'd like it if we did. My church is pro gay marriage and pro whiskey!

Both fine things to be pro about.

More whiskey at gay marriages.

We are also big on cake. Episcopals, as long as it doesn't require effort we are for it!

 jreilly89 wrote:
No, the problem is people mixing church and state. I can believe whatever I want, but passing laws that all vegans should be beheaded is rather wrong, I'd say.

A rather dramatic straw-man argument.
I must admit that "Sharia law" is where the intent is NO divide of church and state.
I think with a bit of digging you would find many documents of the state that refer to God.
Roman Catholicism is rather imbedded in Canadian law.
Few countries would be completely clear of religious principles included in their bills or acts.
I feel the original intent to support "having" children could apply: adoption or artificial insemination can result in raising a child and believe me: I would have difficulty raising my kids on my own (I could do it, but it would have some measure of hardship).
To give those wanting to raise children every chance is a good thing: it is one of the least selfish decisions you can make.

A religious friend of mine said almost those exact words to me on the topic the other day. After challenging him on it, it turned out what he meant was that he didn't consider gay marriage a 'real' marriage because it fell outside the scope of his religious definition.

Of course I further challenged him as to whether all marriages throughout history- especially those that predated Christianity- were legitimate in his eyes. Apparently you don't need to believe in God or make any such vows, you just need to be a heterosexual couple. Which makes no sense to me but eh, if religion made sense I'd be a believer.

@OP

Your co-worker could mean that his view of marriage entails a religious dimension transcendent of what any given civil authority recognizes as valid. That is what I mean when I say, "I don't believe in gay marriage." (Catholic here.) At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.

That is pretty similar to my stance on things.

My personal religious view is that there is a Biblical form of marriage that consists of a covenant between God, the husband, and the wife.
My personal political view is that there is a non-religious form of marriage where the government grants benefits to a couple that gets married.

These two views are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion, and the way I see it I have these two forms of marriages that actually exist independently from each other. If tomorrow the State of Oklahoma somehow finds out that there was a screw-up with my marriage license and I wasn't actually legally married due to a technicality, I wouldn't feel that my spiritual marriage would be any less valid. If I were to turn away from God and my wife and abandon my marriage vows, but never legally divorce, then I would feel that my spiritual marriage was broken but that my legal marriage would still exist.

I also want to note that my religious view regarding marriage as a covenant between God/man/woman is a personal view, and as such it has no bearing on what I think the government should do and I don't think that government should be able to restrict marriage based on what I personally believe would be wrong for myself.

I have also always been very honest that back in 2004 I voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma, and that I have grown in my understanding of my spirituality and how it should interact with politics since that vote and that I regret my part in causing anguish to a large number of Oklahomans.

 redleger wrote:
"I do not believe in gay marriage"

How would you interpret that?

There are some broad possibilities. It could mean he views marriage as a religious affair and his religion does not condone homosexuality. It could mean he views marriage as a social construct for producing children and raising families, adoption being a separate issue from marriage. It could also mean he views marriage as an institution going back some six thousand years or more that has previously been reserved for a man and a woman (not addressing polygamy here) and he sees no reason for it to be changed. Or he could have some other reason.

My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?