Quote:Marriage is NOT a legal construct. Mainly because the legal system did not construct it. That is like saying buying your house is a legal construct or bartering a chicken for some flour is a legal construct. No, the legal aspects of it are protections and have nothing to do with the underlying purpose/goals/outcomes. If you are talking about a marriage license, that's just silly. That's like yesterday in the history of marriage.

Marriage is a legal construct in modern times

---

Quote:I do also, but it seems that there is little that can be done if you do not celebrate homosexual activity; then you are a "hateful", "homophobic", "bigot".   Even though I'm not hateful, not fearful, and I'm not intolerant towards homosexuals.  I just think that homosexual activity is immoral and a sin.  Along with a number of other sins, which we are all guilty of.  

Yes by ideological faint you are .

Quote:I don't think that you can reason with the angry rhetoric and demonization  which you describe.  It is what I would consider bigotry (from  the definition). There is nothing you can do with the lies, except for correct it; for anyone who may not know what you are saying, and jump to the wrong conclusion based on the abuse of language.

Bullshit you are the hateful side and are trying to play the victim for being called out

(July 16, 2018 at 1:49 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: I feel badly that your experiences have led you to this conclusion. My whole point in getting involved in this thread was to dial back the generalizations, mischaracterizations, and straw men. We still disagree, but the angry rhetoric and demonization has to stop because it is counter-productive. 

I do also, but it seems that there is little that can be done if you do not celebrate homosexual activity; then you are a "hateful", "homophobic", "bigot".   Even though I'm not hateful, not fearful, and I'm not intolerant towards homosexuals.  I just think that homosexual activity is immoral and a sin.  Along with a number of other sins, which we are all guilty of. 

I don't think that you can reason with the angry rhetoric and demonization  which you describe.  It is what I would consider bigotry (from  the definition). There is nothing you can do with the lies, except for correct it;  for anyone who may not know what you are saying, and jump to the wrong conclusion based on the abuse of language.

OK, so do you think that the government should make adultery illegal?

Do you think that it should make divorce impossible?

Do you think it should enact laws that are founded in your religious beliefs?

Or, do you think that religion should keep its rules to itself and let the *secular* society determine what is legal and illegal?

Remember, NOBODY is asking for your church to sanctify the secular marriages performed by the state. The two are separate issues and should be separate issues.

Quote:You have said that the belief is hateful, but you just admitted that it is not. 

And if I knew you, you would have the same opinion of me. I have a dozen gay acquaintances (and probably a couple of relatives) and have never said boo to them. If they every asked me, I would explain exactly what I have explained here like 9 times in this thread alone. No hate, no judgement. From my perspective the issue is between you and God.

It does not matter if you regard there free expression of their sexuality or their desire to be in relationship as immoral you are being ideologically bigoted .But most Christians keep it to themselves .

(July 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: What was Obergefell v. Hodges about? A ruling that overturned state-level bans/ballot initiatives/laws on gay marriage. It also struck down portions of DOMA (passed by a veto-proof majority of democratically-elected congressmen/senators). Do we run our country by opinion polls coupled with judicial activists or do we run it according to a democratic process? It's not clear anymore.

Individual rights are not subject to the democratic process. That is what prevents the tyranny of the majority.

Individual rights are granted by the democratic process. Every advancement of rights in the last 150 years has been part of the democratic process.

Quote:

---

(July 16, 2018 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: Perhaps. But who should change a definition older than history itself? 5 people?

How about the majority of people who realize discrimination against gays is wrong?

Opposing changing the definition of a word/institution older than history itself is not discrimination.

(July 16, 2018 at 1:58 pm)SteveII Wrote: Here's a question. If someone tells you they are a Christian, are you going to assume they are hateful?

No. But if they start saying that we should discriminate against gays, I do. If they start saying that the secular society should institute Biblical morality, then I have a serious problem.

Quote:All I have done is 1) pointed out the core issue/belief of Christianity, 2) attempted to explain that it has more to do with the definition of marriage than telling people what they can and can't do, and 3) explained that most accusation leveled at Christians are some combination of mischaractizations, demonizing, straw men, and red herrings. If you have a problem with my conduct, you are simply not capable of having a civil discussion on this topic.

And yet somehow a great many Christians do not have these bigoted beliefs. They also realize that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable in a secular society, even desirable.

The *definition* of marriage in a *secular* society is a government sanctioned bond between people in order to form a family. That *you* only define it as between people of opposite genders is irrelevant. Tradition is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is good for the people in the society.

Quote:What rights and privileges where being withheld?  As a single man I want to know how I'm being discriminated against.  Should we re-define it, so I can be a married bachelor?

That's retarded comparison and the right for same sex relationships to be recognized as marriage is being withheld 

Quote:I think that some rights should be extended to all.   For instance, I think that you should be able to designate, who you can have visit you in a hospital.  Even if they are not family, even in spite of family.     But note, for the most part, I wasn't really talking about the marriage issue at all.

Marriage should be i right extended to homosexual relationships

---

Quote:All I have done is 1) pointed out the core issue/belief of Christianity, 2) attempted to explain that it has more to do with the definition of marriage than telling people what they can and can't do, and 3) explained that most accusation leveled at Christians are some combination of mischaractizations, demonizing, straw men, and red herrings. If you have a problem with my conduct, you are simply not capable of having a civil discussion on this topic. 

Yup core idea's which are regressive and bigoted and no no fallacies have been used at all.

(July 16, 2018 at 3:28 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Individual rights are not subject to the democratic process. That is what prevents the tyranny of the majority.

Individual rights are granted by the democratic process. Every advancement of rights in the last 150 years has been part of the democratic process.

Quote:

---

How about the majority of people who realize discrimination against gays is wrong?

Opposing changing the definition of a word/institution older than history itself is not discrimination.

It is when you institute a 'separate but equal' framework for 'secular unions'.

The *word* isn't that important. What *is* important is the societal and governmental benefits, including things like survivor benefits and tax deductions. Also, the recognition by the government of the bond.

Would you be happier if government got out of the marriage business altogether, leaving that to the religious institutions, and instead have *every* government sanctioned union be a civil union?

Quote:Yes, all the civil rights advancements have come at the hand of the supreme court...oh, wait, that's not even close to being true.

Many have and this is one of them

(July 16, 2018 at 3:21 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 1:49 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do also, but it seems that there is little that can be done if you do not celebrate homosexual activity; then you are a "hateful", "homophobic", "bigot".   Even though I'm not hateful, not fearful, and I'm not intolerant towards homosexuals.  I just think that homosexual activity is immoral and a sin.  Along with a number of other sins, which we are all guilty of. 

I don't think that you can reason with the angry rhetoric and demonization  which you describe.  It is what I would consider bigotry (from  the definition). There is nothing you can do with the lies, except for correct it;  for anyone who may not know what you are saying, and jump to the wrong conclusion based on the abuse of language.

OK, so do you think that the government should make adultery illegal? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Do you think that it should make divorce impossible? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Do you think it should enact laws that are founded in your religious beliefs? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Or, do you think that religion should keep its rules to itself and let the *secular* society determine what is legal and illegal? ABSOLUTELY

Remember, NOBODY is asking for your church to sanctify the secular marriages performed by the state. The two are separate issues and should be separate issues.

I marked my views above.

(July 16, 2018 at 3:32 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 3:21 pm)polymath257 Wrote: OK, so do you think that the government should make adultery illegal? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Do you think that it should make divorce impossible? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Do you think it should enact laws that are founded in your religious beliefs? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Or, do you think that religion should keep its rules to itself and let the *secular* society determine what is legal and illegal? ABSOLUTELY

Remember, NOBODY is asking for your church to sanctify the secular marriages performed by the state. The two are separate issues and should be separate issues.

I marked my views above.

In that case, what is the problem with having a government sanctioned institution for people who want their relationships recognized by the government and that includes gay relationships?

Is the only problem that the government calls it marriage?