Homophobia

[Amarok]

The controversy over homosexual marriage is largely a matter of public policy. Most Christians do indeed oppose it on largely religious grounds. Not all do. There are some secular grounds for opposition to gay marriage as-well. My own position is that marriage is a sacrament and that government should get out of the marriage business entirely; although, it is difficult to imagine how that could even happen given how useful recognition of lawful familial relationships are. A narrowly defined consensus clarifies the legal obligations of family members to each other. Once an institution, like marriage, becomes too elastically defined it ceases to be useful and muddles one’s ability to think clearly about roles and responsibilities unique to a marital relationship. In heated debates, I have called same-sex marriages “pretend marriages” which is definitely an insult but still accurately reflects my belief that same-sex marriages are essentially different from traditional marriages. The same reasons that justify gay marriage undermine any basis for recognizing the concept of marriage itself. The word becomes devoid of content. The issuance of gay-marriages is a massive social experiment. It could later prove to be no big deal and maybe even beneficial for society as a whole but I am very skeptical for now. I suspect that, in general, the further a family’s organization deviates from the traditional nuclear family the less stable and healthy it will be.

The boycotts of Chik-Fil-A were IMHO an attempt to vilify people for not conforming to right-think. The owners’s personal opinions did not affect their business practices. No gays were denied service. No anti-gay slogans were printed on paper cups. But the boycotters could not tolerate the very existence of people who are indeed tolerant, but simply do not enthusiastically affirm homosexual relationships. Many of the people who came out in support of Chik-Fil-A did so as a rebuke of the smear tactics used by Jacobean-style activists.

So confirming all we have said then

---

They are correct on both counts because all forms of sexual immorality are considered sinful. Preaching is very much topical. As homosexuality comes to the fore other issues get pushed back. In a post-Christian country, churches are playing whack-a-mole just to keep up with the growing acceptance of falsities and evils. I would say that while issues of gender identity garner the most attention because of their political nature, the biggest issue in the church right now is pornography.

So affirming all we have said then

[Rhondazvous]

Pedophilia cannot be legalized. Even "consensual" sex between a heterosexual adult and a minor is considered statutory rape.
I guess it's true: the first casualty of any war is truth. And this is war.

[FatAndFaithless]

Pedophilia cannot be legalized. Even "consensual" sex between a heterosexual adult and a minor is considered statutory rape.
I guess it's true: the first casualty of any war is truth. And this is war.

I'm confused...who's advocating for legalizing sex between an adult and a minor?

[vulcanlogician]

There are some secular grounds for opposition to gay marriage as-well.

I looked long and hard for serious arguments against same-sex marriage. It was the thesis of one of my term papers that there weren't any. I looked at the issue objectively and found nothing of any merit. Opposition to same-sex marriage is religiously motivated--period.

My own position is that marriage is a sacrament and that government should get out of the marriage business entirely; although, it is difficult to imagine how that could even happen given how useful recognition of lawful familial relationships are.

I respect that position. Why don't religious organizations simply conduct their sacramental rites privately within their own institutions (excluding whomever they'd like) and divorce themselves and their sacraments from identification with the public system of legally recognizing familial relationships? That seems like a simple and fair solution. 

It's no "affront against God" for a secular government to allow gays to enjoy the benefits of a given legal status. And at the same time, no right-minded atheist gives a flying fuck about the ceremonies that Christians privately conduct within the confines of their churches.

---

Pedophilia cannot be legalized. Even "consensual" sex between a heterosexual adult and a minor is considered statutory rape.
I guess it's true: the first casualty of any war is truth. And this is war.

I'm confused...who's advocating for legalizing sex between an adult and a minor?

The FLDS.

[robvalue]

Indeed, it's theists who (usually) insist on also being married in a secular, legal sense. They don't have to.

---

And yeah, there are secular arguments against allowing gay marriage. They just aren't very good.

[The Grand Nudger]

The boycotts of Chik-Fil-A were IMHO an attempt to vilify people for not conforming to right-think.

[/url]
"Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" held on August 1, 2012 in Port Charlotte, Florida.

The Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy was focused around the American fast food restaurant Chick-fil-A following a series of public comments made in June 2012 by chief operating officer Dan T. Cathy opposing same-sex marriage.
This followed reports that Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, the S. Truett Cathy-operated WinShape Foundation, had donated millions of dollars to political organizations seen by LGBT activists as hostile to LGBT rights. 

to wit:

In January 2011, the media reported that the American fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A was co-sponsoring a marriage conference along with the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), an organization that had filed an amicus brief against striking down Proposition 8in California (see Perry v. Brown).[3][4][5][6][7] The PFI lobbied against a state effort to ban discrimination in Pennsylvania on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[8] Responding on its official company Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said that support of the PFI retreat had come from a local franchisee, stating "We have determined that one of our independent restaurant operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars."[9]
The WinShape Foundation, a charitable endeavor of Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy and his family, stated that it would not allow same-sex couples to participate in its marriage retreats.[10] Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010.[11]Equality Matters, an LGBT watchdog group, published reports of donations by WinShape to organizations that the watchdog group considers anti-gay, including $2 million in 2009, $1.9 million in 2010 and a total of $5 million since 2003, including grants to the Family Research Council and Georgia Family Council. WinShape contributed grants to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Exodus International, an organization noted for supporting ex-gay conversion therapy.[12]

Protestors at a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis,_Tennessee]Memphis, Tennessee Chick-fil-A store on Same Sex Kiss Day

The Marriage and Family Foundation received $994,199 in 2009[13] and $1,188,380 in 2010. The Family Research Council, an organization listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Winter 2010,[14][15][16][17][18] received $1000.[19][20][21]
Tax filings for 2012 showed that Chick-fil-A created a new foundation, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, to provide grants to outside groups. It funded only one previously funded group, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Other filings for WinShape Foundation showed no funding for groups opposed to LGBT causes.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-...ontroversy

It wasn;t what they were thinking, right think or wrong think or whatever scareword you want to employ next..it followed what they were -doing-.  Will your opinion accommodate these facts? No. It didn't then, it hasn't in the interim, it won't now.

---

IDK if anybody ever cares to read those links..but the real choice bit in there..is that the effect was that profit went up.  A bunch of bigoted shit for brains christers stomped out to the Pollo Palace and bought food even though they didn't before or wouldn't have otherwise..and those people are our "moderates"...that silent majority.

While it wasn't an attempt to vilify anyone on the basis of thought policing..somehow, the organization attained palpable (and profitable) heroic status with christians....for being bigoted assholes and providing millions of dollars to bigoted causes. Long story short.

Carry Moar Water, Neo?

[Angrboda]

The controversy over homosexual marriage is largely a matter of public policy. Most Christians do indeed oppose it on largely religious grounds. Not all do. There are some secular grounds for opposition to gay marriage as-well.  My own position is that marriage is a sacrament and that government should get out of the marriage business entirely; although, it is difficult to imagine how that could even happen given how useful recognition of lawful familial relationships are. A narrowly defined consensus clarifies the legal obligations of family members to each other. Once an institution, like marriage, becomes too elastically defined it ceases to be useful and muddles one’s ability to think clearly about roles and responsibilities unique to a marital relationship. In heated debates, I have called same-sex marriages “pretend marriages” which is definitely an insult but still accurately reflects my belief that same-sex marriages are essentially different from traditional marriages.  The same reasons that justify gay marriage undermine any basis for recognizing the concept of marriage itself. The word becomes devoid of content. The issuance of gay-marriages is a massive social experiment. It could later prove to be no big deal and maybe even beneficial for society as a whole but I am very skeptical for now.  I suspect that, in general, the further a family’s organization deviates from the traditional nuclear family the less stable and healthy it will be.

Marriage is a sacrament? WTF? I'm pretty sure that people have been forming couples independent of religion for a long time. If you simply mean that this is what your religion teaches you, well that's fine. But marriage as an institution belongs to all people, not just those of this religion or that. Marriage is a secular institution because recognition of those private commitments has a very public function. I don't see how you can withdraw that without hurting both marriage and society. The only thing I can see would benefit from that is putting the control of marriage under the thumb of majority religions like Christianity and Islam, to the detriment of anyone and everyone else. Given your talking points, I doubt this is so much your goal as it is you mindlessly parroting party talking points. What good do you see coming from reserving marriage to the province of religious institutions? What basis do you have for thinking that marriage in any sense is or should be primarily a religious sacrament?

[Fireball]

Marrying a couple in a religious ceremony requires that the officiant have a license, which is obtained from the secular government. If people in said religious institution want to call that ceremony "holy", that's their prerogative, but it ain't legal unless sanctioned by the state. When the christ-punchers call it "holy", it is so only within the confines of their religion, thus a sub-set of all marriages. Thus there is no right whatsoever for the religious to try and dictate what two people a marriage is between.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Homophobia is sometimes justified.  For example, here is a homosexual that all Christian gay-bashers would do well to be phobic about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiFnSVqu1D4&t=2s

Boru

[Mermaid]

Why are humans so obsessed with who other humans fuck?