Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 02:50:14
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
dereksatkinson wrote:From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.
I would love to hear your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so". It's been too long since I've had the pleasure of humiliating someone who dared to make such a horrible argument.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/17 02:50:24
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 02:53:53
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
dereksatkinson wrote:That is NOT what I've argued. In principle, the state simply shouldn't care. If two brothers live in the same household and support eachother they should be able to file a joint tax return. A household is more than multiple people living under the same roof. It's, or more accuratly it was, the basic social unit the government had to advantage in order to gain a maximum output of newborns. From the government perspective, it shouldn't matter who you are plowing. Everything is political. The REAL question is whether or not the way the government regulates this is right. That may be the question that interests you, but it's no more an appropriate question then that of OP. Knowing why so many non-religious individuals display homophobic behaviours is perfectly relevant. dereksatkinson wrote:From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. Abnormal and deviant are synonymous. Also, be prepared to be lambasted at the very first sign of a naturalistic fallacy.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/17 02:58:04
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 03:06:26
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
if you want to move in with your brother you can always file "head of household" as long as he doesn't make any money. That's the "non-married live with somebody" eqvivalent of filing "married", but the main downside is that it compares to the "married, and the wife doesn't work and stays at home like a good woman" standards of yesteryear.
There is not a "living together, filing jointly" equivalent yet, and I don't know if that is something that is going to happen.
Edit: and we really NEED gay married couples:
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/17 03:09:06
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 03:09:02
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Relapse wrote:Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.
I suspect that some people are talking about Christian marriage and equating it to religion as a whole...
Which isn't that unreasonable a stance in western countries where Christians still outnumber most other religions... but is also what makes the argument that marriage should be a religious thing between a man and a woman such a silly one. Christians were getting married in legal civil ceremonies with narry a priest in sight long before they started getting the church involved.
There have certainly been religious ceremonies happening to wed couples from other religions for a much longer time. But from what I've seen so far, it's mostly the Christians who are making the big noises against same sex marriage, so it's their views that tend to be bandied about.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 03:19:11
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
insaniak wrote:Relapse wrote:Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.
I suspect that some people are talking about Christian marriage and equating it to religion as a whole...
Which isn't that unreasonable a stance in western countries where Christians still outnumber most other religions... but is also what makes the argument that marriage should be a religious thing between a man and a woman such a silly one. Christians were getting married in legal civil ceremonies with narry a priest in sight long before they started getting the church involved.
There have certainly been religious ceremonies happening to wed couples from other religions for a much longer time. But from what I've seen so far, it's mostly the Christians who are making the big noises against same sex marriage, so it's their views that tend to be bandied about.
Ah, I see what you mean. I was indeed thinking of all the various rituals of other belief systems as well as Christian.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 03:21:19
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
I've had responses that would have put this cock deep in the discussion three times now. I've not posted a single one.
I think I'm learning.
I'll be damned.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 03:42:45
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
friendlycommissar wrote:So, given that - is there an argument against gay marriage that is not founded on either a religious belief about the immorality of homosexual relations (or a unexamined, knee-jerk and immature "two guys kissing? eew! gross!" reaction)? I have never heard of any such argument.
The other argument is that the state has an interest in perpetuating itself and so has a bias towards recognizing marriages that will produce offspring.
It's a gakky argument, obviously, since plenty of couple marry and don't have kids, or people who have had hysterectomies or vasectomies or are just barren or whatever still get married, but you asked and there it is.
friendlycommissar wrote:I'm not looking for gakky arguments that fall apart as soon as you at them. As you point out, this argument is non-starter.
You asked for an argument not based in religion, I provided one, and now you're saying "well, a better arument". You're moving the goalposts, I answered the question as you asked it. Stop playing calvinball.
friendlycommissar wrote:Do you support expanding marriage to gays? Your position on marriage is completely unrealistic and nonsensical, so it's not even an option under consideration nor will it ever be. So my question is: Given that straight people will continue to be allowed to marry and gain all the benefits of marriage, and given that taking state recognition of marriage from straight people is not a viable option, do you continue to oppose expanding the franchise to include gays?
Because as I said, refusing to expand the franchise to include gays on the grounds that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married either is an intellectually dishonest argument. The consequences of acting on such a position are that straight people continue to enjoy marriage rights and gay people don't, and pretending the consequences are otherwise is disingenuous..
It doesn't seem like you actually need my answer, because you seem to have provided your opinion of what mine is and then told me I was intellectually dishonest for having it. It doesn't seem like you've left a role for me in this debate between what you think I'd say and why what you think what I might say is wrong. So, have fun I guess.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/17 03:46:51
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 03:45:00
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
cincydooley wrote:I've had responses that would have put this cock deep in the discussion three times now. I've not posted a single one.
I think I'm learning.
I'll be damned.
Not participating isn't the answer.
I kinda want to know, do you, Ouze or Derek believe that the governmental legislation of marriage is a recent, liberal trend, or do you otherwise think that the almost constant historical trend of governments honouring the parents of families with material and legal rewards is, equally an almost constant history of dangerous oversteps?
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 03:52:20
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
Kovnik Obama wrote:I kinda want to know, do you, Ouze or Derek believe that the governmental legislation of marriage is a recent, liberal trend, or do you otherwise think that the almost constant historical trend of governments honouring the parents of families with material and legal rewards is, equally an almost constant history of dangerous oversteps?
I don't know that I'd consider it to be a dangerous overstep, per se; and I know it's not recent (well, I mean "recent" is sort of flexible, but lets go with the history of the US for this example). When I say that I would like there to be no state role in marriage, I didn't say that "I don't think straight people should be allowed to get married either"; as someone pretended I said. What I mean is that the government has no right to authorize or withhold a marriage between consenting adults. I'd ideally like the tax code to be revised to provide neither benefit nor penalty based upon marital status, for all marriage to be a private contract between two people and the government's role to be seriously reduced to essentially being a register of marriages which have occurred which can be used for probate purposes.
That's my ideal solution; but it's impractical. My practical solution is supporting gay marriage as an equal right under the 14th amendment because that is a more workable goal, for now.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:04:31
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
Kovnik Obama wrote: cincydooley wrote:I've had responses that would have put this cock deep in the discussion three times now. I've not posted a single one.
I think I'm learning.
I'll be damned.
Not participating isn't the answer.
I kinda want to know, do you, Ouze or Derek believe that the governmental legislation of marriage is a recent, liberal trend, or do you otherwise think that the almost constant historical trend of governments honouring the parents of families with material and legal rewards is, equally an almost constant history of dangerous oversteps?
I don't think it's a liberal trend; I think it's obviously at the forefront now than, say, in the 1960s because there is more....vocal desire?.... For gays to get married. To me not granting people equal protection under the law is a dangerous trend, and it's one that, for this issue, is "caught up" on the word marriage. And yes, it's really only a problem for the far right because they want to "claim" the word marriage. Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
The important thing here is legal protection, yes? If so, call all "marriages" civil unions or civil contracts, treat them as any business partnership, and leave the notion of marriage to the individual and whatever cult, church, coven, etc they want to perform a ceremony, if any. That allows Christians to maintain their spiritual covenant on their own time and dime and any other religion to do the same (forgive me, I'm not familiar with the specifics) while having nothing to do with their protection under the law.
I do find it curious, your earlier comment, about the "output of newborns". Can you elaborate on that?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:05:39
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
Ouze wrote:I'd ideally like the tax code to be revised to provide neither benefit nor penalty based upon marital status, for all marriage to be a private contract between two people and the government's role to be seriously reduced to essentially being a register of marriages which have occurred which can be used for probate purposes.
Don't you think that it could be dangerous to leave marriage contracts in the hands of private laws? Seems to me that this would allow very abusive situations to occur whenever a party in favour of general deregulation or laissez-faire came to power....?
That's my ideal solution; but it's impractical. My practical solution is supporting gay marriage as an equal right under the 14th amendment because that is a more workable goal, for now.
I essentially agree with you, except over the fact that marriage can eventually be abandonned. In my humble opinion, marriage answers a psychological need/opportunity felt by many parents, and that's too much of an easy point to play on, for too large of a section of the population, for political actors to agree and all give it up.
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:07:57
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
cincydooley wrote:Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
Why should we give the religious right any concessions instead of just telling them to STFU and stop being repulsive bigots? There might have been a practical argument in the past, that re-naming marriage is a necessary change to get gay "marriage" approved, but now that the trend is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage becoming the nation-wide standard in the near future I think that argument is a lot weaker.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/17 04:09:14
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:10:18
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
cincydooley wrote:Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
The important thing here is legal protection, yes? If so, call all "marriages" civil unions or civil contracts, treat them as any business partnership, and leave the notion of marriage to the individual and whatever cult, church, coven, etc they want to perform a ceremony, if any. That allows Christians to maintain their spiritual covenant on their own time and dime and any other religion to do the same (forgive me, I'm not familiar with the specifics) while having nothing to do with their protection under the law.
I think this would be about "right"... However, I realize, and I think most of us here realize that the Government is not going to let go of that cash stream (yeah, it accounts for a tiny drop in the bucket, but when many states are operating in a deficit, they arent going to relinquish any of their revenue sources), and so they should change the wording to be some form of "union", be it civil or whatever. This way, they still can get people qualifying for the "tax breaks" without the religious nutters going all crazy about how "holy" marriage is, and ultimately it leaves that term "marriage" open for those who want to say they are married (which, is probably everyone who gets married straight or otherwise)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:15:08
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
Peregrine wrote: cincydooley wrote:Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
Why should we give the religious right any concessions instead of just telling them to STFU and stop being repulsive bigots? There might have been a practical argument in the past, that re-naming marriage is a necessary change to get gay "marriage" approved, but now that the trend is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage becoming the nation-wide standard in the near future I think that argument is a lot weaker.
How is it a concession? It's removing it legally from everyone.
I can have a marriage ceremony at a church without having the legal documentation to back it up. Anyone can.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:16:08
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
cincydooley wrote:I do find it curious, your earlier comment, about the "output of newborns". Can you elaborate on that?
Individuals have value for their governments. Schemes to encourage larger birth rates have been used constantly in history, and women were constant spoils of war. In a war, a larger population allows you, very simply, to outspend your opponent, so states always had a fairly well recognized incentive to breed their own people.
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:16:23
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
Also, I think it's awfully unfair to call anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots or nutters.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:19:02
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
It's a concession because the only reason to change "marriage" to "civil union" or whatever is to appease the repulsive bigots who can't stand the thought of all those icky gay couples getting the same "marriage" title as Good Christians. It accomplishes nothing of any practical value to anyone, it just lets the bigots have a symbolic victory to make them feel better. And I see no reason to let people like that have anything.
I can have a marriage ceremony at a church without having the legal documentation to back it up. Anyone can.
Yes, of course you can. But what does that have to do with anything?
Also, I think it's awfully unfair to call anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots or nutters.
You're right, it's not. But the forum rules prevent me from calling them what they deserve, so I guess I'll have to be unreasonably kind to them.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:19:22
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote: and so they should change the wording to be some form of "union", be it civil or whatever. This way, they still can get people qualifying for the "tax breaks" without the religious nutters going all crazy about how "holy" marriage is, and ultimately it leaves that term "marriage" open for those who want to say they are married (which, is probably everyone who gets married straight or otherwise)
To me that just ends up with the "I will rarther burn marriage to the ground and take it avay from everybody before I let the gays get married" feeling, and feels like you still let the anti-same sex marriage guys "win". I know that is not the intention though, but the feeling will be there. I do think this is one of those times where the actual word is important. Same-sex couples want the actual word (and the legal, societal, and emotional status that comes with it) for the same reasons that anti-same sex marriage folks don't want them to have it.
Because it's the word, as much as what it provides, that is so important to both parties.
I think the vast majority of the people posting in favor of the "just call it union" argument in this thread don't want to deny the word to same-sex couples, I think you guys just want to see peace and get this settled and don't have any bad intentions when you make that argument. (Just to clear that up  )
Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote: Peregrine wrote: cincydooley wrote:Which is why I think the government should simply remove it from their legal nomenclature.
Why should we give the religious right any concessions instead of just telling them to STFU and stop being repulsive bigots? There might have been a practical argument in the past, that re-naming marriage is a necessary change to get gay "marriage" approved, but now that the trend is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage becoming the nation-wide standard in the near future I think that argument is a lot weaker.
How is it a concession? It's removing it legally from everyone.
See above.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/17 04:21:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:24:31
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
Peregrine wrote:
Yes, of course you can. But what does that have to do with anything?
I'd contend sort of a lot. If one can have their marriage without any legal benefit, then what does it matter what the legal name of it is?
You're right, it's not. But the forum rules prevent me from calling them what they deserve, so I guess I'll have to be unreasonably kind to them.
What do they deserve? I'm sorry, but i just can't agree with you there. People are allowed to be repulsed things. You don't get to call them a bigot simply because they're repulsed by different things than you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:.
I think the vast majority of the people posting in favor of the "just call it union" argument in this thread don't want to deny the word to same-sex couples, I think you guys just want to see peace and get this settled and don't have any bad intentions when you make that argument. (Just to clear that up  )
.
I'd agree with that. But more so, because it's just a fething word, I'd rather get them the rights theyre entitled to. If it's at the expense of a word that I don't think should be dictated by the government in the first place, then by all means get rid of the word.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/05/17 04:27:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:31:31
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I guess you could also be a bigot and still be kind to people? I would probably fall under that category, where I am very mixed on things.
I have my religious view on things, such as gay marriage. But what I think is right or wrong is just what I think is right or wrong. So in that regards I guess I would also be a bigot.
But what I think is right or wrong based on my religious has zero bearing on what I think the law should be.
I do think that my church should be able to decide what kind of ceremony they get to hold inside the church and what kind of weddings our preacher will officiate over. If the church want to say "we will not officiate a same-sex marriage" then they shouldn't be forced to. But just because my church doesn't want to marry same-sex people doesn't mean that they shouldn't legally be allowed to be married and get the benefits of marriage.
Am I still a bigot for thinking something even if I advocate for the people I am bigoted against?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:34:38
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
The word is rained down upon us so freely today that I'm not sure I even know what it means anymore.
I mean, definition wise there's a requirement for hatred and intolerance. That part seems to get left out when the media uses it as a safe word.
Today, It's being used to shame people that disagree. Last I checked I'm able to disagree without being hateful or intolerant.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/17 04:37:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:35:07
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
cincydooley wrote:I'd contend sort of a lot. If one can have their marriage without any legal benefit, then what does it matter what the legal name of it is?
What if we change your driver's license to a "  card"? It will still let you drive your car, you'll just have to carry around a humiliating obscene title. Names matter.
What do they deserve?
To drown in a puddle of their own tears as society changes around them, and they're shunned by everyone else like the KKK is now.
People are allowed to be repulsed things. You don't get to call them a bigot simply because they're repulsed by different things than you.
I think you're having some confusion with the concept of being a bigot. This is like saying that I can't call someone a racist, just because they look down on different people than I do.
But more so, because it's just a fething word, I'd rather get them the rights theyre entitled to. If it's at the expense of a word that I don't think should be dictated by the government in the first place, then by all means get rid of the word.
Like I said, that might have been a stronger argument ten years ago, when gay marriage was in doubt. Now that it's pretty much inevitable and the courts have consistently thrown out gay marriage bans it's a lot less reasonable to suggest that we give the repulsive bigots a symbolic victory just so we can be nice to them.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:36:11
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
cincydooley wrote:
d-usa wrote:.
I think the vast majority of the people posting in favor of the "just call it union" argument in this thread don't want to deny the word to same-sex couples, I think you guys just want to see peace and get this settled and don't have any bad intentions when you make that argument. (Just to clear that up  )
.
I'd agree with that. But more so, because it's just a fething word, I'd rather get them the rights theyre entitled to. If it's at the expense of a word that I don't think should be dictated by the government in the first place, then by all means get rid of the word.
I would also imagine that a large portion (maybe a majority) of same-sex couples might not care about the actual word either. There are just passionate groups on both sides going "I'm not letting you gay up our sacred covenant, no marriage for anyone if I have to let you get gay married" and "it has to be the exact equal to what straight people have always had, don't get rid of the 1st class version and make a 2nd class version for everybody that is left now".
The compromise crowd is there (although I will admit that I am in the camp that thinks it would be a lopsided compromise), but the passion on both sides will be the delay.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:43:38
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
But everyone says the same thing and it allows me to still drive? The who the feth cares?
To drown in a puddle of their own tears as society changes around them, and they're shunned by everyone else like the KKK is now.
We are just going to have to disagree on this one.
I think you're having some confusion with the concept of being a bigot. This is like saying that I can't call someone a racist, just because they look down on different people than I do.
No. I have a pretty clear understanding. I am bigoted toward fat women that wear yoga pants. I don't want to be around them at all and I hate them. I have a very catholic friend that was in my wedding that believes homosexuality is a sin and has a gay brother In law that he gets along with just fine.
The problems that the word bigoted has been so distorted by the media due to its free use that it's seldom used correctly anymore.
Donald Sterling? Clearly not bigoted toward blacks. Doesn't prevent the media from calling him one.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:43:57
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:I do think that my church should be able to decide what kind of ceremony they get to hold inside the church and what kind of weddings our preacher will officiate over. If the church want to say "we will not officiate a same-sex marriage" then they shouldn't be forced to. But just because my church doesn't want to marry same-sex people doesn't mean that they shouldn't legally be allowed to be married and get the benefits of marriage.
This depends on how exactly the religious official gets their power to perform marriages. If it's just a ceremony with no legal meaning and you still have to go submit the paperwork at the courthouse then there's no problem here. If the religious officials are acting as a representative of the government then it's a problem.
Am I still a bigot for thinking something even if I advocate for the people I am bigoted against?
There were plenty of racists who did things (in a very condescending way) for the people they were racist against. You're certainly better than people who have anti-gay beliefs and work to take rights away from gay people, but your beliefs are still inexcusable.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:45:35
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
It's this whole, "your beliefs are inexcusable" part that I don't understand.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 04:46:37
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Well, you are bigoted against bigots so a pox on your house!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/17 04:48:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 06:25:01
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:I do think that my church should be able to decide what kind of ceremony they get to hold inside the church and what kind of weddings our preacher will officiate over. If the church want to say "we will not officiate a same-sex marriage" then they shouldn't be forced to. But just because my church doesn't want to marry same-sex people doesn't mean that they shouldn't legally be allowed to be married and get the benefits of marriage.
This depends on how exactly the religious official gets their power to perform marriages. If it's just a ceremony with no legal meaning and you still have to go submit the paperwork at the courthouse then there's no problem here. If the religious officials are acting as a representative of the government then it's a problem.
Honestly, I think there is a bit of a double standard here... Many of the ministers that I know or knew growing up *had* to get a license or whatever that allowed them to be the signing authority on a marriage license (honestly, I've no idea how though). So of course, because they are religious clergy they are afforded a sort of buffer to refuse service to people based on orientation that a civil judge does not.
On the one hand, I get it, and kinda feel that, as a private institution, churches should still retain that ability to refuse marriage ceremonies on the grounds that it does violate many of their religious beliefs.
On the other, Im getting sick of the religious BS, and kinda wish it'd disappear. Organized religion is one of the worst ideas that humanity has ever had.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 06:33:16
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Temple Prime
|
The gist of it is "Men shouldn't put their penises up each other's butts" or "Women need the D, not other women"
It's really just bigotry.
|
Midnightdeathblade wrote:Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/05/17 07:04:53
Subject: Could someone explain to me the argument against same-sex marriage?
|
 |
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge
Bellingham
|
cincydooley wrote:Also, I think it's awfully unfair to call anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots or nutters.
It is unfair to call people who disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds bigots, though its often fairly easy to call them hypocrites. However, the religious justifications given to oppose gay marriage are based in homophobia, or at least the common interpretations of them are. The passages that Christians point to in order to condemn homosexuality, and thus gay marriage, are deeply disturbing and hateful. The old testament calls for killing homosexuals by beating them to death with rocks, which is fairly ghastly and inhumane, and the only passage in the entire New Testament that even mentions homosexuals lumps them in with murderers and thieves, which is just ludicrous.
People -- good, decent people -- who are raised in a religious faith and mostly see the positive aspects of that faith (sense of community, sense of justice, etc.) can get extremely defensive when its pointed out that their religious texts contain some ideas that no sane modern person would agree with, and cognitive dissonance can kick in and lead to people being in deep denial about the nature of the idea they are promoting. That said, a religious person can still be held responsible for being a rational person, and should be able to recognize that denying rights to gay people on the basis of their religious belief is unjustifiable.
|
|
 |
 |
|