Author Topic: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"  (Read 61061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5142
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #245 on: May 10, 2012, 01:30:58 PM »
Hey, I didn't come in here to say what I say goes. Not at all. I am trying to be respectful of others. When I say I believe in the power of prayer, I mean just that. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. If it's clear that the words "I, me, myself" are being used, it's a fucking opinion. You may not believe prayer works, and I believe it does. It's called respect and a couple of you have managed to lose mine.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26652
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #246 on: May 10, 2012, 01:48:22 PM »
The hiding behind "it's my belief, deal with it" is poor consolation for the people whose rights have been curtailed. Frankly it's yet another instance where people use the protection religious beliefs get in order to exert force on others.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5142
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #247 on: May 10, 2012, 01:54:54 PM »
The hiding behind "it's my belief, deal with it" is poor consolation for the people whose rights have been curtailed. Frankly it's yet another instance where people use the protection religious beliefs get in order to exert force on others.

rumborak

Frankly, it shows you didn't read my posts at all pertaining to prayer. I left it at a short "I believe in the power of prayer" like sentence and the meat of my posts was addressing the other points.

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28809
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #248 on: May 10, 2012, 01:55:37 PM »
Snapple, if you saw a ballot that wanted to ban Blacks from getting jobs or whatever, would you still be so defensive of the people who vote for it? What if it's a law that bans christians from holding office. Would it still be fine for the majority to vote for it if they believe in it?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10292
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #249 on: May 10, 2012, 02:22:00 PM »
The hiding behind "it's my belief, deal with it" is poor consolation for the people whose rights have been curtailed. Frankly it's yet another instance where people use the protection religious beliefs get in order to exert force on others.

rumborak

Frankly, it shows you didn't read my posts at all pertaining to prayer. I left it at a short "I believe in the power of prayer" like sentence and the meat of my posts was addressing the other points.
I think he was referring to your other posts.

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5142
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #250 on: May 10, 2012, 02:34:58 PM »
Which other posts? I didn't highlight prayer until that post.

Adami - That's a silly question. It's not as black and white as you're assuming it is.

Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 6993
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #251 on: May 10, 2012, 02:39:25 PM »
Adami - That's a silly question. It's not as black and white as you're assuming it is.

Many in the opposition would have said the same thing during the civil rights era.
Quote from: black_floyd
Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.
Quote from: Cyril
I'm going to fall on top of you if I do and we'll both go down together

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5142
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #252 on: May 10, 2012, 02:40:20 PM »
I'm out.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #253 on: May 10, 2012, 02:48:29 PM »
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens and you're defending them with the rationalization that they are entitled to vote that way "because of their beliefs."  A lot of people see that rationale as a cop out.  I know you don't like it, but I think Adami's question is rather spot on in the context of your position. 
 
 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.



Offline senecadawg2

  • Posts: 6993
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #254 on: May 10, 2012, 02:51:30 PM »
How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.

but. but. but... I thought that the institution of marriage was a corporeal entity that needed to be protected from gays. If we don't protect it, it most certainly would be hurt. Right?
Quote from: black_floyd
Oh seneca, how you've warmed my heart this evening.
Quote from: Cyril
I'm going to fall on top of you if I do and we'll both go down together

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9455
  • Gender: Male
  • Lost within a world I chose to hide
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #255 on: May 10, 2012, 02:51:42 PM »
If I believed in ritual sacrifice, would the government respect that?  No.

Why is bigotry different?
We must learn to rise above the past
Before we can at last
Begin again

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #256 on: May 10, 2012, 02:54:33 PM »
In defense of snapple, he did write that he's conflicted on this issue.     

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28809
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #257 on: May 10, 2012, 02:56:17 PM »
Which other posts? I didn't highlight prayer until that post.

Adami - That's a silly question. It's not as black and white as you're assuming it is.

Why not? And please don't be condescending to me, I was asking an honest question. If you don't want to answer, that's cool, but don't call it silly just because you don't have an answer.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7257
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #258 on: May 10, 2012, 03:08:37 PM »
I think what you're not understanding, snapple, is the fact that you're defending people who voted to strip civil rights from a group of fellow citizens

With all due respect Barry (and I believe you are aware of the fact that I do have a tremendous amount of personal respect for you notwithstanding drastically different religious and political views), by using that sort of rhetoric, you are shutting down any possibility whatsoever of having any sort of discussion on the issue at hand.  I know that is not your intention, but by creating a de facto label and pigeonholing anyone who is against gay marriage as "anti civil rights," you are in effect demonizing and marginalizing anyone who might disagree with you.  And whether your position is correct or not, that is not what this forum is for.  In my years of running this forum, I have seen a number of people take some pretty offensive views on a variety of topics, and those views have occurred on both sides of the political and/or religious spectrums (spectra?).  But provided the person presents those views without violating forum rules, they are permitted to express them without being directly or indirectly attacked for holding those views.  I don't mean to single you out, but (1) unlike some others who have posted in the thread, you posted your post in such a way that I could form an articulate, meaningful response to it without just getting pissed off and getting into a further argument about the issue, and (2) I know from my interactions with you that you are mature enough to understand and respect where I am coming from even if you disagree.

But for others in the thread, I am going to offer a general warning:  Namecalling, posts that are only sarcastic indirect personal attacks, throwing the term "bigot" around when someone disagrees with you, or other personal attacks and rule violations will not fly.  It saddens me that I have come back from vacation to find so much of it here in just a few threads.  I temporarily shut down P/R once before to send the message that if this sort of behavior continues, we will go back to the old days where we no longer have a P/R subforum and political and religious discussion are banned.  That is not my preference.  However, if the general attitude that seems to prevail here of "the forum rules don't apply in P/R and I can troll, spam, and personally attack anyone who disagrees with me" continues, that's what I'm going to do.  I am tired of the religious attacking the nonreligious, the nonreligious attacking the religious, the right attacking the left, the left attacking the right, and so on.  That's not the forum I want to run.  So I hope it stops because I am getting tired of it.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #259 on: May 10, 2012, 03:08:55 PM »
To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:
What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?

Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and irrelevant. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Ok, you're arguing from that standpoint. I can see that, I have no actual objections about it - since I don't seek to (for the sake of this thread) determine what the purpose of marriage is. That answer still doesn't get to the core of my argument: I don't see why the state should determine the telos of a mere agreement (or contract) two or more individuals make with each other.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3044
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #260 on: May 10, 2012, 03:12:49 PM »
Commonly overlooked in the US is that it's the government's responsibility to protect the rights of all Americans, not just those who agree with the majority.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #261 on: May 10, 2012, 03:14:45 PM »
I thought kirk's point was accurate and exact (and non-insulting).  The issue is exactly that; the denial of civil rights (whatever the reasons may be)

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13268
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #262 on: May 10, 2012, 03:24:54 PM »

 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.

It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
  It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome.  If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
     The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC. 
  With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16200
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #263 on: May 10, 2012, 03:29:55 PM »
It's not such a small percentage of people actually. I don't have exact numbers, but the alternative sexualities are not just some fringe group imposing an obscure and unpopular belief on the majority.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3044
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #264 on: May 10, 2012, 03:30:11 PM »
What frustrates a lot of us goes back to my last comment:

Commonly overlooked in the US is that it's the government's responsibility to protect the rights of all Americans, not just those who agree with the majority.

It should not matter that the majority of people vote against gay marriage. It shouldn't matter what the majority think on issues of civil rights. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the minorities too. It frustrates me that a majority of Americans in these cases seem to think that they're opinion is more important than the rights of other Americans.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #265 on: May 10, 2012, 03:30:47 PM »

 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.
     The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....a

This is so maddenly frustrating to see this argument used over and over.  They only thing they are "demanding" are the rights they are suppose to have under the very constitution that the right embraces so fervently.  They are not telling anyone do to ANYTHING, just asking to be treated as equal citizens.

Why is this so hard to see?

Quote
Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.

WAIT, seriously? You are saying that NOT accepting a certain people is being Christlike?  That NOT treating others as you would like to be treated is Christlike?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 03:38:10 PM by soundgarden »

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #266 on: May 10, 2012, 03:33:51 PM »
I propose that we prevent redheads from marrying.  Having that many freckles is just unnatural, and allowing them to marry promotes increasing numbers of fleck-faced people in our society.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline sirbradford117

  • DTF Resident Beatlemaniac
  • Posts: 1309
  • Gender: Male
  • All you need is love.
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #267 on: May 10, 2012, 03:36:09 PM »

 How far do we allow rights to be stripped from one group of citizens because another group of citizens has a different set of beliefs?  That's not fair, particularly when granting those rights hurts no one.

It may not 'hurt anyone' but the fact of the matter is that 'the people have spoken' whether you or anyone likes it or not. It's ridiculous that when a vote doesn't go 'your' way that suddenly those who voted to pass whatever law are 'idiots' or whatever deragotory term you'd like to place there. Quite frankly I find it ironic that a LARGE portion of liberal minded people are going off on the voters who overwhelmingly passed the law when liberals pride themselves on being so tolerant and open minded. Likewise I find it disheartening when those who claim to be Christian fail to demonstrate the compassion and understanding that Christ teaches.
  It's the states and the voters in that states right to vote for and pass whatever laws they want. That's that, and for me that's the way it should stay, a State decision...no matter the outcome.  If the support for gay marriage was as large and as popular as it is portrayed or wants to believe it is, then these states would be passing the laws. The last 32 votes nationwide concerning gay marriage have been voted against. That should give an indication on where our country stands on the issue. Polls schmolls, the proof is in the vote and gay marriage is consistently voted against. That's a fact.
     The gay/lesbian "community" is a very small percentage of the population....and frankly my ONLY problem with the entire movement is the fact that a small percentage of the population is trying to tell the Majority percentage what to do....and when it doesn't go thier way they throw a "tantrum" about it and say how evil everyone is. Heck, even California consistently votes not to allow gay marriage...it takes a judge who thinks his beliefs supersede the 'majorities' to annul that vote time and time again....which it won't be long before that happens in NC. 
  With further education the support may come...but to want to snap your fingers and demand that 'poof'.....we get our way when society isn't there just yet.....sorry. I think that the gay and lesbian movement should realize that despite the large amount of media and Hollywood support that there is still a long way to go for them. That's just the truth of the matter.

I am a P/R lurker, and I do not particularly side with either of the opposing camps in this thread.  But this is the post of the year, and I'm not even kidding.
VOTE IN THE BEATLES SURVIVOR!!!!!

Listen to sirbradford in all things Beatles :P

This is evil, but I went with bradford

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #268 on: May 10, 2012, 03:37:03 PM »
It's not such a small percentage of people actually. I don't have exact numbers, but the alternative sexualities are not just some fringe group imposing an obscure and unpopular belief on the majority.
And if you factor into this group heterosexual people who support gay rights, the numbers become much, much larger.

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7257
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #269 on: May 10, 2012, 03:43:39 PM »
I propose that we prevent redheads from marrying.  Having that many freckles is just unnatural, and allowing them to marry promotes increasing numbers of fleck-faced people in our society.

Thanks for disregarding my warning above.  Specific warning has been issued to you.  And given your behavior and the insistence of others on continuing to insist on labeling those who are against gay rights as civil rights violators after my warning above, this thread is done.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7257
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #270 on: May 10, 2012, 06:58:39 PM »
Thread is re-opened by request.  But PLEASE heed my warnings above about personal attacks if it is to remain so and to remain ban-free going forward.  It might be a good idea to read this post of mine before continuing:  https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=327.msg1284902#msg1284902

Thanks.


EDIT:  Oops.  I guess it would help if I actually unlock the thread, right?   :lol
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline comment

  • Custom Title
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
  • What’s on your mind Facebook?
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #271 on: May 10, 2012, 07:15:21 PM »
"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."   

Looking at the full quote, what it means is the person quoted has a worldview based on a belief in a God that’s original intent was not a homosexual coupling for marriage. 
The Constitution of the U.S. is not the Bible, but in general the Bible is still valued in American life and used to consecrate oaths on many occasions, from court room to President (not always anymore). 
He swore in a second time without ceremony or Bible (misspoken oath), but here’s an example when the 44th President was sworn in by The Chief of the highest court in the land and before the Nation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hde4s-xBhqE
This video expresses that American authority values God enough to invoke His name and, in this case, the God of the Bible.  In general, it’s not surprising to see a states citizens vote for a biblical worldview in the case of defending biblical marriage.  The Bible is used as an authority in their way of life and has influenced that way of life along with the Constitution.  The Bible is tolerated less and nominally interpreted more often, but for only half a century has the Bible been outlawed from being taught in U.S. schools.  However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values.  They’ll do this for the sake of Yeshua the Messiah, who was sacrificed for every person’s sin.  Also, the protection of their families and even the protection of those who hold the opposing view.  Rights are nice, but death isn’t.  When you value the Bible and believe sin leads to death, you’ll tend to vote for laws that support that worldview.
Signature

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7257
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #272 on: May 10, 2012, 07:17:59 PM »
Wow.  For that post alone, I'm glad I reopened the thread.  Very well said, comment.  I think that captures my views pretty closely anyway.  I wish I had your gift for words.  I also wish those on the other side of the issue would take a step back and ponder the fact that, while there are plenty out there who have screwed up motives, some truly "believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other [people], vote their values." 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline SeRoX

  • DTF.org Offical Obsessed Member
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2080
  • Gender: Male
  • The VoiceMaster
    • James LaBrie
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #273 on: May 10, 2012, 07:28:47 PM »
I really find it funny, especially about what the title says but the subject is compelety different. We all love gays but sorry you have no rights here. (We really need a troll face smile here)  And I also find it funny how politic matter turns into a religious matter. Politic decision is one thing, good or bad but using people's beliefs in this is completely another thing that can't be acceptable.

To me, no religion on the world gives answers about what we need in this era. So, why the hell we try to put it on the table all the time?. I'm writing this because when I look some article about this matter on the internet I saw some responds and I don't know if I find it funny or clueless.

"North Caroline fears God, We don't like Hurricane here"

I hoped it somehow sarcastic respond but unfortunetly it's not, considering the discussion seemed pretty serious.
Quote from: Plasmastrike
SeRoX is right!
Quote from: Nihil-Morari
SeRoX is DTF's JLB!
As usual, SeRoX is correct.

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7257
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #274 on: May 10, 2012, 07:32:24 PM »
And I also find it funny how politic matter turns into a religious matter. Politic decision is one thing, good or bad but using people's beliefs in this is completely another thing that can't be acceptable. 

I think comment did a very good job two posts above yours of explaining why religious beliefs cross over into the political realm. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #275 on: May 10, 2012, 07:36:42 PM »
"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."   

Looking at the full quote, what it means is the person quoted has a worldview based on a belief in a God that’s original intent was not a homosexual coupling for marriage. 
The Constitution of the U.S. is not the Bible, but in general the Bible is still valued in American life and used to consecrate oaths on many occasions, from court room to President (not always anymore). 
He swore in a second time without ceremony or Bible (misspoken oath), but here’s an example when the 44th President was sworn in by The Chief of the highest court in the land and before the Nation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hde4s-xBhqE
This video expresses that American authority values God enough to invoke His name and, in this case, the God of the Bible.  In general, it’s not surprising to see a states citizens vote for a biblical worldview in the case of defending biblical marriage.  The Bible is used as an authority in their way of life and has influenced that way of life along with the Constitution.  The Bible is tolerated less and nominally interpreted more often, but for only half a century has the Bible been outlawed from being taught in U.S. schools.  However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values.  They’ll do this for the sake of Yeshua the Messiah, who was sacrificed for every person’s sin.  Also, the protection of their families and even the protection of those who hold the opposing view.  Rights are nice, but death isn’t.  When you value the Bible and believe sin leads to death, you’ll tend to vote for laws that support that worldview.

I'm not Christian, but I wouldn't vote for Christianity to be suppressed by the state.

This isn't about having your own beliefs - everyone is entitled to that.  This is about stripping away the basic civil rights of others (or more accurately, it's prolonged denial), which rather based on one's religious beliefs or not, I find wholly unacceptable.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #276 on: May 10, 2012, 07:44:16 PM »
"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."   

Looking at the full quote, what it means is the person quoted has a worldview based on a belief in a God that’s original intent was not a homosexual coupling for marriage. 

This is the 3rd time I've posted this in this thread - can you please tell me exactly what one is meant to follow if they follow God's intent for marriage as expressed in the Bible?:




However; as long as it’s still legal to value the Bible and vote there will always be people who believe that sexual immorality brings death and without a sense of malice towards other Americans, vote their values.  They’ll do this for the sake of Yeshua the Messiah, who was sacrificed for every person’s sin.  Also, the protection of their families and even the protection of those who hold the opposing view.  Rights are nice, but death isn’t.  When you value the Bible and believe sin leads to death, you’ll tend to vote for laws that support that worldview.

Objectively, do you really think it's fair that laws are based upon what people beleive to 'bring death' without actually having any empirical proof that this is definitely the case, and that these laws then result in some of their fellow humans being classed as unequal citizens (or, as it feels to them: unequal human beings, since they're not gonna feel classed as fellow 'citizens' at all) which most definitely DOES cause harm to those people whilst they are still alive here on earth? I respect your right to beleive what you want - but I challenge the idea that those beliefs ought to be enshrined in law when it's proven that they definitely do cause harm; whereas the inverse situation would in no way empirically cause anyone else harm at all.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #277 on: May 10, 2012, 07:48:15 PM »
I've got a better way to articulate my position.  I believe that global warming denialists and so-called "skeptics" are condemning this planet to incredible turmoil, both climatically, economically, and also at a huge humanitarian cost.  The unwillingness for people to make radical changes to our existing society in an attempt to reduce anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will result in the deaths of tens of millions of people.  I believe that it will lead to incredible human pain and suffering.  I think it is the most important issue mankind is facing, and it is almost wholly being ignored by the world's governments.

And yet I would never vote for those people to be stripped of their rights, or put in prison, or forcibly silenced.


If you don't believe that gay marriage is morally right, that's fine.  Just don't force your opinions on others (even if they are a minority), and don't vote for people's rights to be denied.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 9471
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #278 on: May 10, 2012, 07:54:33 PM »
RE: that post looking at the Old Testament regulations regarding marriage.

I know that not everyone will see it this way...but to me it's pretty clear.   The literal words are true...but I personally see *the principle* of the statement beyond just the literal.

Matt 19:3-8

And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” He said to them: “Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning.

One thing *IS* clear.   God used the Law of Moses to *regulate* practices that he DID NOT necessarily agree with.  So the regulation of certain practices by the Israelites was not necessarily condoning it.    He just knew they were FAR too stubborn to put away the practice of "divorcing their wives"...or polygamy for that matter.     In other Scriptures, Jesus states very clearly that God always intended marriage to be between ONE man and ONE woman....and that he *tolerated* polygamy for a time.   He also *tolerated* divorce for a time...though he regulated both practices through the Law of Moses.   

Once Jesus came to earth, he made things clear.   God tolerated this stuff for a time...but no more.  His *original purpose* was for ONE man and ONE woman to be married til death, and never divorce.   (the only acceptable grounds being fornication...that is, cheating)
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 568
  • Gender: Female
Re: "I'm Not Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Marriage"
« Reply #279 on: May 10, 2012, 07:57:33 PM »
Also, I'm gonna post up here 2 paragraphs of a bigger discussion that I had via PM with jammindude yesterday, as it's relevant for the overall public discussion:
---------
Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is so ridiculously based on interpretation it's unbelievable. People like to cite the old testament to back-up their prejudices, yet fail to acknowledge that Jesus made a new covenant. They also like to cite Paul (who in Romans basically stated that homosexual acts are the _punishment_ for unbelief in themselves - not a sin), yet happily gloss over the other things Paul said that they don't agree with (total authority of state, anti-semitism, veiling of women...?). Any faith is the faith in your own interpretation, and faith in your own unerring sense of right in this matter. The Bible condemns the harming of other people - I'm very certain that there is a lot harmful about telling people they are 'sinners' for engaging in consensual acts of love and expression that do not harm another, whereas the supposed 'sinful' act doesn't harm anyone. If you apply the Categorical Imperative to the issue, then you realise it's clear that what you are doing is willing into your universe some incredibly aggressive and harmful laws.

Socrates was the wisest of men and he clearly said "I know that I know nothing". I know nothing, and everyone on this planet 'knows' nothing. Basic lessons in phenomenology teach us the absolute arrogance it is to presume to have transcended the subject-object barrier; to claim to know the noumenal or the Absolute is sheer folly, just as it's sheer folly to claim you 'know' a universal notion of what is RIGHT and WRONG - other people can read the exact same bit of biblical text and draw entirely opposing conclusions - funnily enough those conclusions mirror their own values and attitudes before they had even read the text because, y'know, that's the power of interpretation. Roland Barthes wrote of the 'Death of the Author' - to claim to have external objective clarity about a text is dangerously totalitarian, and however much one wants to beleive that biblical text is indeed 'the word of god' then you actively choose ignorance to not look back through history and see how humans have shaped the texts and interpretations at all points throughout history to suit their own ideas.


RE: that post looking at the Old Testament regulations regarding marriage.

I know that not everyone will see it this way...but to me it's pretty clear.   The literal words are true...but I personally see *the principle* of the statement beyond just the literal.

Ey-up, it's personal interpretation again ;)

Once Jesus came to earth, he made things clear.   God tolerated this stuff for a time...but no more.  His *original purpose* was for ONE man and ONE woman to be married til death, and never divorce.   (the only acceptable grounds being fornication...that is, cheating)

Isn't God all-powerful? Why would he 'tolerate' things?