Toddler sings "Aint no homo gonna make it to heaven." Church crowd cheers

[Ziploc Surprise]

According to Christian fundamentalist (and some not quite so fundamentalist) doctrine gays are supposed to go to hell *note that I don't agree with this doctrine please*. As for the state/parenting problem we're already neck deep in that shit.

This is an issue that really bugs me with debating religion these days. Fundies, naturally, say their perspective on Christianity is the correct one. This is annoying, but to be expected. But a lot of anti-religious folks of all types seem to sign up to their essentialist view of Christianity, as being the "one true" type of Christianity. This is totally illogical. If Christianity is false, then why do you attempt to define what it "essentially" is, and if you must, why do you define it as a virulent strain of biblical literalism that originated in America in the later 19th century?

OK I know this isn't exactly what you said, but this is something that happens quite a lot around here. I even saw, on this site, an atheist giving a Christian reps for "At least having to balls to stand up for your beliefs unlike the pussy liberal so-called "Christians". I mean, what in the hell kind of attitude is that to have for someone who claims to be the champion of free thought?

Fundamentalists believe that the Bible is literally the very words of (the Christian) god, it's inerrant, and it should be interpreted literally. There are other flavors that are not fundamentalist or not quite so fundamentalist and some that aren't fundamentalist at all. I was referring to Christian fundamentalist doctrine.

[Annik]

I'm very, very sad that this innocent child will grow up into a homophobe.

[Gambit]

As terrible as this may sound; I never read the whole way through Mehmet's posts. I knew a guy from Turkey called Mehmet and he was an asshole, so I've formed a dislike for the name. I know, it's an irrational correlation; associating something as trivial as 6 letters strung together, which don't actually have any affect on my life, with disgusting and immoral behaviour. Every time I see the name Mehmet though, I feel like the world is going to cave in. If I was the king of the world, I'd have everyone with that name slaughtered.

[Anomalocaris]

Almost as depressing as the realization that all those adult sized infants around him will never get smarter than monkeys.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Well, from a christian perspective, he is telling the truth, though.

In principle,no he is not. Of course that is the position of the cretins of the illiterate, homophobic lunar right. ("ain't no homos" Oh please)

That is far from any consensus of Christian teaching. Eg the Church of England (Episcopalian) has openly gay parisioners and clergy.

[Cyberman]

Ok I'm going to enter this into the record here and then I'll call it a day on the topic until the record is changed.

Marriage is a legally binding contract that gives certain entitlements under that law, whether they be financial (life insurance, bereavement benefits etc), property (who gets the house should the couple split up) or parental (who gets little Timmy). The ceremony, if you go formal, is all but window dressing; the only part that means anything is the bit where the vicar asks if there's an objection to the couple getting hitched. Other than that, the really important part from a legal standpoint is the signing of the register, which makes it officially recognised.

I don't know what the situation is overseas but here same-sex couples can enter into what are called 'civil partnerships', which is pretty much marriage by any other name, one calculated not to offend what are oxymoronically termed religious sensiblilties. It's a bit like a group of kids giving a toy to that one kid they don't want to play with, just to keep him out of their way. If that sounds offensive, it's because it is, and if I were homosexual I would feel the same way. That's what they and their supporters (like me) are fighting for - not special treatment, but the same treatment.

I can relate this to my own personal situation, if you'll indulge me. Over here, an unmarried couple who live together as though they are married are generally recognised and treated as a married couple. When my Sam was stolen from me, the Department for Social Security (DSS), who are in charge of such matters, walked me through all the paperwork for things like funeral payments and bereavement benefits. The details are hazy now but as I recall, for all aspects which involved my paying out, our 'living as though married' status applied and help was available. However, for anything that meant I might be in receipt of payment, such as Bereavement Benefit, that status did not apply and I wasn't therefore entitled. Civil partnerships are entitled, as are traditionally married couples, but I was not. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have my Sam back safe and sound than ever touch a penny of their money again. It just would have been nice to have it on record somewhere that we had a partnership stronger than most marriages.

So you see, I completely empathise with anyone being denied rights freely and arbitrarily given to others, and have done so even before all this happened.

[Erinome]

As terrible as this may sound; I never read the whole way through Mehmet's posts. I knew a guy from Turkey called Mehmet and he was an asshole, so I've formed a dislike for the name. I know, it's an irrational correlation; associating something as trivial as 6 letters strung together, which don't actually have any affect on my life, with disgusting and immoral behaviour. Every time I see the name Mehmet though, I feel like the world is going to cave in. If I was the king of the world, I'd have everyone with that name slaughtered.

His actual name is kilic. Mehmet is not his name at all, if I remember correctly. Besides, what's in a name?

[Brian37]

I just saw that video on the news. Sick fucks filling that kid with hate. Child abuse without a doubt.

[Violet]

I'm very, very sad that this innocent child will grow up into a homophobe.

Look on the bright side: they might end up JUST LIKE ME!

Wouldn't that be just so cool?

...

Anybody?

Oh, right

...



But seriously... that could happen.

[Tempus]

Homosexuals have no relevance to that core principle, as they are not even included into the institution of family. They never were, friend.

At various points in history condoms, Boeing 747s, and refrigeration weren't available. So what? Never having had something is no justification not to bring it in. If making gay marriage legal is tearing down a building and replacing it with another then so be it. If you believe it causes societal harm then what evidence do you have to support that assertion? Preferable not anecdotal, rather something we can all look at. There are quite a few countries which have legalised gay marriage since the turn of the millennium -- what problems are those countries facing now as a direct or indirect result of homosexual marriages being legalised?