"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[RoadRunner79]

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.

[SteveII]

NO. I am not trying to "use my beliefs on you". Do whatever you want. Fine, you don't want to be told you are a sinner according to another belief system. I understand that. But the fact is that that belief system exists and you must co-exist with it.

Being told publicly that I'm a sinner is not "coexisting."  It is verbal abuse, and I will not roll over and play dead when treated in such a manner.

Labeling everyone who tries to follow the Bible as best they can as 'hateful' just does not follow. You infer hatred using faulty logic:

1. There are people who believe in God and that the Bible is his revelation (belief is based on many different types of reasons)
2. The Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin
3. I don't believe the Bible or in the concept of sin.
4. Anyone who does goes around telling me that I'm a sinner because of my sexual orientation is hateful.

FTFY.  Stop mis-characterizing my position.

Here's a question. If someone tells you they are a Christian, are you going to assume they are hateful?

I feel badly that your experiences have led you to this conclusion.

You do realize, don't you, that your conduct in this thread is now part of those experiences?  This cannot be undone.

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. 

But who should change a definition older than history itself? 5 people?

Why not?  If one person chooses to use a different definition, I'm fine with that.

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.

I hope you realize that civil rights should never be at the mercy of "democratic process" or majority rule.  What's that line -- something about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?

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.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

In the interest of not abusing language, what do you call it when a group of people, speaking on behalf of ancient traditions and a particular religious perspective, wish to deny some of their fellow citizens the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come from a government-issued license? This always was a question of equal protection and equal opportunity under the law. Churches and other religious institutions are free to discriminate all they want. The government issuing the license may not.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

In the interest of not abusing language, what do you call it when a group of people, speaking on behalf of ancient traditions and a particular religious perspective, wish to deny some of their fellow citizens the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come from a government-issued license? This always was a question of equal protection and equal opportunity under the law. Churches and other religious institutions are free to discriminate all they want. The government issuing the license may not.

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?

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.

[SteveII]

All valid points and are part of a civil discussion. Here's the question, who has the right to redefine an institution that predates history itself? 5 people?

In the United States, marriage is a legal construct, not a religious one.  So, yes SCOTUS has the authority to determine whether or not gay marriage can be legal, and recognized by both state governments and the Federal government.

That this legal construct is termed marriage is immaterial to the issue at hand, namely that LGBTQ couples are seeking the same legal standing as traditional couples, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with it.  That's what LGBTQ people and their allies are fighting for.  It has nothing to do with whether or not a church recognizes such unions.

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.

[Crossless2.0]

In the interest of not abusing language, what do you call it when a group of people, speaking on behalf of ancient traditions and a particular religious perspective, wish to deny some of their fellow citizens the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come from a government-issued license? This always was a question of equal protection and equal opportunity under the law. Churches and other religious institutions are free to discriminate all they want. The government issuing the license may not.

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?

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.

[Bolding mine]

Neither was I. 


I asked you what word or words you would use for those who would deny others equality under the law. I'm still waiting.

[Ravenshire]

Well - there's no concrete proof that your god even exists so, really, your entire argument is moot. 

An individual should not be told they are going to hell or that they are sinners simply for who they fall in love with or are attracted to. The real problem is that homophobic white men decided a long time ago that something natural and beautiful, grossed them out and so they decided that it "must" be a bad thing because it didn't fit in with their narratives of what "normal" love should be. 

Fuck that noise. What other people decided to do behind closed doors is none of anyone else's business. Plain and simple. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. If you don't like gay sex, don't participate in it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to be in a gay relationship. So if they aren't hurting christians, then christians need to mind their own fucking business.

Thank you for the very clear examples of mischaracterizations, red herrings, and straw men arguments that you beat up on.  If you are incapable or don't care to even understand the other side, this automatically makes you ineligible to be part of the conversation. You are just unproductive/destructive noise. This is what is wrong in society today!

No one is trying to stop people from doing anything behind closed doors. The current issue is the redefinition of marriage. Given the belief structure of Christians (God ordained the relationship right from the beginning and everything that follows), you really can't see why they (as a group) have a problem with redefining the word 'marriage'? You could just disagree with this point, but no, that won't do. You want to characterize it as Christians trying to control what's going on in the bedroom because that's a straw man you feel you have a strong argument against. Another disingenuous trick is to find extreme view and then label everyone else with that view.

You know, I've offered a possible solution to your conundrum on the definition of marriage a couple times already, and to my knowledge, not one of you christers has commented on it. You want "marriage" to be a sacred bond between one man and one woman? Fine. Why don't you spearhead the drive to make "marriage" a strictly religious thing and civil unions a strictly legal thing. Anyone who wants to get "married" can go to a church and do so. With the caveat that it has no legal strength whatsoever. If a couple wants to have that they would need to enter into the legally binding civil union. This way, everyone is treated equally and all can choose one, the other or both.

I'm betting you have no interest on stripping the church of those legal powers though.

[Astreja]

Here's a question. If someone tells you they are a Christian, are you going to assume they are hateful?

Nope.  I know enough Christians in RL -- literally hundreds -- to know that the vast majority of them are very nice people who are too polite to comment on other peoples' sexuality.  

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.

You think that *I'm* the one who's incapable of having a civil discussion? Heeheeheeheehee!

I'm pretty sure we all know the core issues and beliefs of Christianity, mainly because you talk about little else.

Get that fucking 2x4 out of your eye and stop pretending that "the definition of marriage" is somehow the monopoly of religious communities.  It's not.  It's currently a civil institution as well as a religious one, and if you think you can use your beliefs to interfere with the civil  rights of other people, you've got another thing coming.

[SteveII]

Here's a question. If someone tells you they are a Christian, are you going to assume they are hateful?

Nope.  I know enough Christians in RL -- literally hundreds -- to know that the vast majority of them are very nice people who are too polite to comment on other peoples' sexuality.  

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.

[polymath257]

What majority view?  You're talking out of your ass, Steve.  Obergefell v. Hodges was in mid-2015.

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.

---

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?